1st-36th, Volume 60 - Orders of the Day

Speaker's Rulings

Madam Speaker: I have two ruling for the House.

On October 19, 1995, during Question Period, the government House leader raised a point of order claiming the words used by the honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) imputed motives. The words complained about were " . . . since it now appears that the Minister of Labour is taking sides in this dispute." I took the matter under advisement to peruse Hansard. Having done so, in my opinion there was no imputation of motives. Therefore, there is no point of order.

* (1430)

* * *

Madam Speaker: I have a second ruling for the House.

On Wednesday, October 11, I took under advisement a point of order raised by the opposition House leader (Mr. Ashton) as to whether the word "racist" used in Question Period by the honourable member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin) was out of order.

Members will recall a ruling made earlier in this session on June 7 when two members of this House used the word and both were asked to withdraw. I would also draw to the attention of this House that previous Speakers have ruled the words "racist comments" out of order on March 1, 1993, the words "potentially racist attitudes" were ruled unparliamentary on November 1, 1990, and in 1987 the words "smacking of racism" and "almost a racist assumption" were voluntarily withdrawn by members of this Legislature.

The opposition House leader, in speaking to the point of order, made the point that the House of Commons rulings on the word where it was ruled out of order were instances when they were used in reference to a specific elected member.

Perhaps we are looking at different rulings, but I have found that on May 4, 1994, a member withdrew the phrase "the questions involved were racist," and on November 4 a member was directed to withdraw the words "fanning the flames of racism."

While some members may believe that it is acceptable to refer to a party's or a government's policies as being racist, I do not.

My preference, as I stated on June 7, is that the word "racist" not be used in this House. I accept the point made by the opposition House leader that it should be possible, for example, for a member of this Chamber to refer to apartheid in South Africa as a racist policy, and I will not rule that out of order when used in a similar context when members are speaking of governments and parties outside of this province.

However, I will rule out of order any use of the word "racist" when it is used in this House to describe members of this House, another party represented in this Legislature, or a government of this province, current or past.

I will rule it out of order if there is reference to a specific member of this Chamber or if there is a reference to the policies of a government or a political party.

Therefore, I must ask the honourable member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin) to withdraw without modification or qualification the word which he used on October 11.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): I just wonder if I can ask for clarification of your ruling, Madam Speaker. Is it part of your ruling that, because the member for The Pas made reference to racist policies here in the province, that is the difficulty?

I am just wondering if, for example, we were in Quebec and we were responding to Jacques Parizeau's statement of two days ago whether under this type of ruling we would not be able to comment on those racist policies--

Madam Speaker: Order, please. I believe the ruling is very explicit. I would refer to paragraph 4 which defines when the word "racist" will be acceptable in this House.

Mr. Ashton: With all due respect, Madam Speaker, I challenge your ruling.

Voice Vote

Madam Speaker: The ruling of the Chair has been challenged. All those in favour of sustaining the ruling of the Chair, please say yea.

Some Honourable Members: Yea.

Madam Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.

Some Honourable Members: Nay.

Madam Speaker: In my opinion, the Yeas have it.

Formal Vote

Mr. Ashton: Yeas and Nays, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: A recorded vote has been requested. Call in the members.

The time for the ringing of the bells having expired, I would request the Sergeant-at-Arms to shut off the bells.

The question before the House is shall the ruling of the Chair be sustained.

All those in favour of sustaining the ruling of the Chair, please rise.

Division

A RECORDED VOTE was taken, the result being as follows:

Yeas

Cummings, Derkach, Downey, Driedger, Dyck, Enns, Ernst, Gaudry, Gilleshammer, Helwer, Kowalski, Lamoureux, Laurendeau, McAlpine, McCrae, McIntosh, Newman, Pallister, Penner, Pitura, Praznik, Radcliffe, Reimer, Render, Rocan, Sveinson, Toews, Tweed, Vodrey.

Nays

Ashton, Barrett, Cerilli, Chomiak, Dewar, Doer, Evans (Brandon East), Friesen, Hickes, Lathlin, Mackintosh, Maloway, Martindale, McGifford, Reid, Robinson, Sale, Santos, Wowchuk.

Mr. Clerk (William Remnant): Yeas 29, Nays 19.

* (1540)

Mr. Clif Evans (Interlake): Madam Speaker, I have been paired with the Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson). Had I not been paired, I would have voted against the ruling.

Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin): Madam Speaker, I have been paired with the Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Findlay). Had I not been paired, I would have voted against the ruling.

Ms. MaryAnn Mihychuk (St. James): Madam Speaker, I was paired with the Premier (Mr. Filmon). Had I not been paired, I would have voted against this ruling.

Mr. Gerard Jennissen (Flin Flon): Madam Speaker, I have been paired with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson). Had I not been paired, I would have voted against the ruling.

Madam Speaker: The ruling of the Chair is accordingly sustained. I am therefore requesting the honourable member for The Pas to withdraw the words complained of.

Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The Pas): Madam Speaker, it is not often that I have difficulty speaking in this Chamber, but today I have a lot of difficulty because of the ruling that your office has given.

Madam Speaker, I am a member of the OCN, the First Nation, Opasquia Cree Nation, a First Nations territory in The Pas.

Madam Speaker, I am also a Canadian. This is my motherland here. I do not have a motherland anywhere else, and so I think that entitles me to freedoms that are given to other Canadians, such as the freedom of speech. I feel in this case my freedom of speech has been seriously infringed.

I would also like to say that I know and recognize racism when I encounter racism. You see, I have experienced racism practically all of my life. I have experienced racism in the school, in the workplace. Indeed, I live on a reserve, a reserve that comes from what I call a racist system. I have a number that was given to me by the government. My number is 802. That is racist. My Cree language, my mother tongue, the government also tried to take that away from me. That was the first time I guess my freedom of speech was put into question.

I therefore cannot, in all good conscience, withdraw the remarks that I made. I believe there are policies of this government that I deem to be racist. I could give you examples but I will not. Thank you for listening to me anyway.

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): On a point of order.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. I am requesting the honourable member for The Pas to please withdraw the words complained of.

Mr. Mackintosh: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: I am requesting the honourable member for The Pas to withdraw the words complained of.

If the honourable member does not respond in the manner I have requested, I will be compelled, regrettably, to name him.

If the honourable member for The Pas does not withdraw the words complained of, I will have no alternative and will have to name him.

If the honourable member for The Pas does not withdraw the words complained of, I, regrettably, will have no alternative and will have to name him. I have requested, directed and instructed the member to withdraw. I, therefore, have no alternative but to name Oscar Lathlin for disregarding the authority of the Chair.

Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, it gives me no pleasure to move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings), that the member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin) be suspended from the service of this House for the balance of this sitting day.

Motion presented.

Point of Order

Mr. Mackintosh: During the remarks of the honourable member for The Pas, the member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Pallister) was heard to say from his seat, "this is bullshit." I wonder if you heard that and if you will rule accordingly.

* (1550)

Madam Speaker: Order, please. On the point of order, I did not hear any off-the-record comments or on-the-record comments. I was listening intently, as I think was expected of all members, to the comments being made by the honourable member for The Pas.

I will, however, peruse Hansard and, if necessary, report back to the Chamber.

* * *

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, just for clarification. Is this a motion which we would be able to address?

Madam Speaker: This motion is nondebatable.

Mr. Lamoureux: Thank you.

Madam Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some Honourable Members: No.

Voice Vote

Madam Speaker: All those in favour, please say yea.

Some Honourable Members: Yea.

Madam Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.

Some Honourable Members: Nay.

Madam Speaker: In my opinion, the Yeas have it.

Formal Vote

Mr. Ashton: Yeas and Nays, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: A recorded vote has been requested. Call in the members.

* (1650)

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The one hour allocated for the ringing of the bells has expired. I would ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to please close the doors.

The motion before the House is

THAT the member for The Pas be suspended from the service of this House for the remainder of the present sitting.

Division

A RECORDED VOTE was taken, the result being as follows:

YEAS

NAYS

Ashton, Cerilli, Chomiak, Dewar, Doer, Evans (Brandon East), Evans (Interlake), Friesen, Hickes, Jennissen, Lathlin, Mackintosh, Martindale, Mihychuk, Reid, Robinson, Santos, Struthers, Wowchuk.

Mr. Clerk (William Remnant): Yeas 29, Nays 19.

Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Madam Speaker, I have been paired with the Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Findlay). Had I not been paired, I would have voted against the ruling.

Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): Madam Speaker, I have been paired with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson). Had I not been paired, I would have voted against the ruling.

Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Madam Speaker, I was paired with the Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson). Had I not been paired, I would have voted against the ruling.

Ms. Diane McGifford (Osborne): Madam Speaker, I have been paired with the Premier (Mr. Filmon). Had I not been paired, I would have voted against your ruling.

Madam Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

MATTER OF PRIVILEGE

Members' Freedom of Speech

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): I rise on a matter of privilege, Madam Speaker, and in accordance with our rules and with Beauchesne, it will be followed by a substantive motion.

The matter of privilege is about a very basic, fundamental right and privilege of all members of this House, and, Madam Speaker, I do acknowledge, too, that a question of privilege ought to rarely come up in this House. In fact, Beauchesne's Citation 27 is very clear on that, and as I indicated, in keeping with Beauchesne, it will be dealt with by a motion that will give the House the power to impose a reparation or apply a remedy, and I believe it is on something that is a very serious matter.

The issue, Madam Speaker--

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Point of Order

Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, on a point of order, and I have no wish to exacerbate any situation that may be present, but the matter of the motion and the carrying out of its content, I would ask for your ruling whether that should be concluded before the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) raises his point of privilege.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. On the government House leader's point of order, indeed the government House leader has a point of order.

The motion was carried. I would sincerely request the honourable member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin) to leave the Chamber.

* * *

Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, as I indicated, I am rising on a matter of privilege, and I want to stress again that according to our rules, according to Beauchesne, it is the House that will decide this matter once a prima facie case has been established, and I hope that the House will have the opportunity to deal with this matter, because I believe there are some very serious concerns that we need to deal with in the context of a matter of privilege related to the whole question of the right, the obligation and the freedom of members of this House when it comes to one of the most basic principles of parliament law, the freedom of speech.

I want to stress what parliamentary privilege is, because I think it is important to note, for members of this House in considering this very serious matter, exactly what we are dealing with when we are deal with the matter of privilege.

I want to quote Beauchesne's Citation 24, and I quote: 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.

I want to stress, without which they could not discharge their functions.

I continue quoting again: 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 Parliaments are rights which are absolutely necessary for the members because the House cannot perform its functions without unimpeded use of the services of its Members, by each House for the protection of its members and the vindication of its own authority and dignity.

I want to stress that because, fundamentally, freedom of speech is a matter of privilege of this House. Fundamentally, without freedom of speech, we cannot not only represent our constituents, the constituents that elected us a few months ago, but we cannot carry on our responsibility to uphold the parliamentary system that has its roots back to the Magna Carta in the United Kingdom of 1215; it has its roots back to key rulings that took place in the 17th Century in the United Kingdom in terms of the House of Commons which reinforced the right of freedom of speech of members of that House, rights which were transferred to Canada with the establishment of legislatures, first in the Colonies and later in the Legislatures of Canada after 1867 when Canada became an independent country.

* (1700)

I want to stress just how significant this is, and I want to discuss for a moment what we are talking about. This is not a question of order; this is a question of parliamentary law.

I want to quote Citation 12 of Beauchesne, which stresses the fundamental importance of parliamentary law, and I quote: Parliamentary Law is something quite different from the ordinary Civil Law or Common Law. Parliamentary Law is based on centuries of tradition and precedents which have marked the evolution of parliamentary freedoms from the time that the first Parliaments were governed under the Divine Right of Kings to the stage of Parliamentary sovereignty which we have now acquired.

What are those principles of parliamentary law? Beauchesne's Citation 1 gives the clearest indication of what parliamentary law includes, and I quote: The principles of Canadian parliamentary law are--and I will quote a number sections from Section 1--to protect a minority and restrain the improvidence or tyranny of a majority.

The other section of Citation 1 refers to the need: To enable every Member to express opinions within limits necessary to preserve decorum and prevent an unnecessary waste of time.

In other words, Madam Speaker, parliamentary law is based on one fundamental principle and that is the ability of members of this House or any Legislative Assembly, of any member, even one member, to be able to speak out freely, subject only to the rules of this House in terms of decorum.

Let us not forget, Madam Speaker, just how broadly that is defined. Freedom of speech deals with protection of members of this House against legal action for comments made on criminal or civil matters in this House. Historically, freedom of speech, particularly with the actions of United Kingdom House of Commons in 1629, confirmed by statute in 1688, protected the members of the House of Commons at that time and for time immemorial against actions taken by the Crown because in many ways, whether it was the Magna Carta, whether it was the decision of 1629 or 1688, it was all part of a struggle by members of the then-Houses of Commons for their ability to speak out, the ability of free speech. All of those precedents were transferred to Canada through the Legislatures and were confirmed in 1867, and I would argue have been confirmed since in the Constitution of 1982.

Madam Speaker, I want to deal with the question of freedom of speech and what limitations there are on freedom of speech. I mentioned earlier that there was reference in Beauchesne to the need to preserve decorum. As members of this House will well know, there are times during which the House does intervene in terms of decorum but particularly when it comes to unparliamentary language.

I just want to quote--I do not want to get into detail--in terms of Beauchesne's Citations 488 through 492 which deal with the specific mechanics. I want to deal with the fundamental root of why there are rules in regard to unparliamentary language. It essentially relates to decorum.

I want to quote Griffith and Ryle from Parliament Functions, Practice and Procedures, which was published in 1989, which states very clearly, and I quote, that on the whole the member can speak freely, protected as he is by privilege from possible actions for defamation, subject to compliance of certain conventions and rules of the House.

Madam Speaker, I want to quote further, page 211 of Griffith and Ryle which states that the main guiding principle is that charges should not be made against members or other protected persons which question their honesty or integrity.

Madam Speaker, Erskine May has, I think, probably given the best guide in terms of how one deals with possible breaches of our rules in terms of unparliamentary language when Erskine May talks about the need for good temper, moderation of character being the basis of our parliamentary language. You know, Speakers have consistently ruled that controversy in politics, and indeed what has even been described, as one Speaker in the British House of Commons recently has, as robust, a robust Parliament. That is part of our tradition, including, I would suggest, strong language.

You know, I want to stress just how focused our restrictions on freedom of speech are and to point to a recent decision in the British House of Commons which, I think, deals with the fundamental root of what is protected and what is not protected in terms of freedom of speech in this House, and I want to quote this. Once again, this is from Griffith and Ryle, page 211, when it references the fact, and I quote: that allegations of collective lack of integrity--the "hypocrisy of the party opposite"--have however been allowed; and the Speaker has ruled that while it may be permitted to describe a party as "racist" it would be out of order to apply that term to an individual Member.

Madam Speaker, the ruling of the British House of Commons and, I would suggest, the basic principle of every single ruling of this House in terms of unparliamentary language has been based on the fact that we have freedom of speech, subject only to the fact that we cannot make charges against individual members of this House and other protected individuals. That was confirmed as recently as 1986 in the British House of Commons.

I would note also, while it was on a different matter, the ruling by Speaker Rocan, April 1992, and this was in regard to sub judice convention, where he cited Citation 511 of Beauchesne and indicated that it is a fundamental right, " . . . which they would be hampered in their performance of their duties." This is referring to freedom of speech. "The Speaker should interfere with that freedom of speech only in exceptional cases where it is clear that to do otherwise could be harmful to specific individuals."

Madam Speaker, reinforcing centuries of tradition that references made against individuals and members indeed are subject to intervention by this House, subject to our rules in terms of unparliamentary language, but these conventions that we have, in terms of intervention on matters of unparliamentary language, do not in any way, shape or form take away from the basic fundamental principle, the parliamentary principle of freedom of speech.

I cannot stress enough the importance of freedom of speech. Bourinot Parliamentary Procedure, page 47 of the second edition, I would quote Bourinot who indicated that among the most important privileges that members of the Legislature enjoy is freedom of speech in debate. A privilege long recognized as essential to proper discussion is confirmed as part of the law of the land.

Maingot on Parliamentary Privilege goes into some of the background. I would invite members to look at the development of both parliamentary privilege and one of its most fundamental aspects, that of freedom of speech. When it is indicated on page 2 of Parliamentary Privileges . . . and I quote, that from the time that the Legislative Assembly first established in Canada in 1758, the law accorded to it those taking part in its deliberations all the powers considered necessary for a Legislature and its members to perform their legislative work.

In this way the members had freedom of speech and debate. This was at a time when what is today Canada consisted of colonies in which there was not complete democracy in terms of representative democracy as we know it today. Yet, as early as 1758 in Canada, it was recognized.

I could quote further in terms that may go into some of the background, which I have already dealt with, the United Kingdom precedents, but I want to stress again how important the development, the right of freedom of speech is, and quote Maingot again from page 23, the same edition: that while freedom of speech was probably freedom of privacy in the beginning and conceived to protect the members from the king's wrath, the view of this privileged right or immunity since, it has been printed on sufferance to hear and report what was said in Parliament, is that freedom of speech is a privilege essential to every free council or Legislature. No one in the free world will argue to the contrary.

* (1710)

Madam Speaker, that is why I have risen today on a matter of privilege. We do not believe that we can continue in this House without having a clear discussion by all members about some of the developments that we have seen even as recently as today. And I want to stress that I am not challenging your previous ruling in terms of the use of the word "racist" at this time. Obviously that matter was concluded certainly in regards to that particular matter.

But I raise the issue of concern here that if we do not carefully look, the need to preserve freedom of speech, in particular the ability of members to speak out, not against individual members of this House--everyone accepts that that is not acceptable--but the freedom of members of this House to speak about policies of a government or a political party, something that was just reconfirmed in the British House of Commons as recently as 1986 and is something I believe is fundamental in terms of all our traditions as a parliamentary democracy.

The words may be strong at times but I raise this as a concern. If we are restricted in our ability to comment, whether it be the word "racist" or any other word, whether it be "sexist," whether it be "ageist," "homophobic," there are so many words that are used today I think in terms of analyzing policies, programs of governments and political parties.

But I ask, where would the House of Commons in South Africa have been if they were under the restriction in South Africa in 1949 when apartheid was introduced, a racist policy, a racist set of laws, if they could not have accused the government of bringing in racist laws and of being a racist government?

I ask, Madam Speaker, to the south of us, which while not of direct lineage in terms of the parliamentary system, how anyone could have spoken out against the terrible abuses of civil rights, against slavery, against many issues that were clearly racist, if they were restricted from doing so?

And I ask here in Canada, looking at the House of Commons, could not members of that House have said it was a racist policy or government was racist when there were the internment of Ukrainian-Canadians in the First World War, the removal of civil rights of Japanese Canadians in the Second World War? Would they not have then been able to stand in the House of Commons and call those actions, based as they were on race, racist actions?

What about aboriginal people who were denied the vote in Canada until 1960? Could not a member of the House of Commons have risen in the House of Commons and called that a racist policy, to deny one segment of society the ability to have the most fundamental right of all, the right to vote? And how about in our own Legislature, where we too did not until the Campbell government allow all citizens, including First Nations citizens, the ability to vote?

Could a member of this House in the 1920s or 1930s or 1940s, before the extension of that not have said that that was a racist policy? Could members of this House not have said that prior to the introduction of suffrage for women, and recognizing that the term was probably not used in those days, but in using a term that has since come into usage, could they have not said that that was a sexist policy, to deny 52 percent of the population the ability to vote?

Madam Speaker, I would suggest that the ability of members to use that kind of language, strong language as it may be, use it not only in the context of policies but direct it towards governments, is not only something that is the duty of members of this House, it is also, I believe, the responsibility, it is the privilege of members of this House.

Now, Madam Speaker, I have talked about the evolution of the parliamentary system from the United Kingdom transferred to Canada with the Legislatures and a long, proud history of fighting for freedom of speech that resulted in members of previous Houses being subject to arrest and threats of imprisonment, threats of treason but, you know, I do not want to strictly rely on that precedent, because this province is a province with many histories.

We could talk, Madam Speaker, I believe, about the evolution and the system in France brought about by a revolution which has in many ways impacted on many developments in Canada, as well, another of our founding people.

I could talk about the many Canadians who have come to Canada for the fundamental right of freedom of speech. There are so many people in this House whose ancestors, perhaps even themselves came to this country because of the ability to practise many freedoms, but particularly the freedom of speech.

But I want to focus today, Madam Speaker, on the history of our First Nations, because in many ways the traditions of our First Nations are often not given the kind of significance, the attention that they deserve, and I found it interesting when looking at this matter, the development of parliamentary privilege, that in many ways many of the traditions of First Nations governance are very similar to the traditions that existed prior to the development of the parliamentary system.

In fact, in Britain prior to 1215, which is really one of the watersheds, the signing of the Magna Carta, there were meetings of Anglo-Saxons called witans, essentially tribal meetings by which the wisdom of the elders and community leaders was sought, Madam Speaker, without restriction by kings and nobles of the day.

Madam Speaker, that same kind of tradition is probably very evident to anyone who cares to look with our First Nations or indeed with the Metis, who developed a whole tradition of democracy originally out of the traditions of the buffalo hunt, but a tradition of democracy and freedom of speech that led to the founding of this province in 1870 by Louis Riel, by the other Metis.

That tradition has always been respectful of the right of every member of a community to freedom of speech, and I would encourage members to participate in some of the discussions I have had the ability to participate in. Madam Speaker, there are often no time limits, no particular rules. Discussions take place on a circular basis, the circle very much a part of aboriginal culture. Each and every person is listened to, whether it be the elders or the youngest members of a community, whether someone be in an official position of leadership or whether that person be just like anyone else, a member of that community. That is why, as I speak today on the question of freedom of speech, I do so not only on the basis of the parliamentary system, a system that originated in the United Kingdom that has since been practised throughout the Commonwealth, but I do it based on some of our other traditions as well, particularly our First Nations traditions.

I want to say, Madam Speaker, that this Chamber, with its own long history, is far bigger than any of us today. This Chamber has been the subject of many a debate. This Chamber has a great deal of history, and it is a history of freedom of speech. It is, I think, important to note that in recent years the participation in this Chamber has extended to many Canadians who were not perhaps part of the dominant groups in the early years of Manitoba history, many nationalities and backgrounds.

In recent years, one of the things that I am very pleased with, Madam Speaker, is the increased participation by First Nations, by Metis, Manitobans, in the participations of this Assembly. It is a relatively recent participation, and, in that time, we have seen significant issues, national issues, such as Meech Lake, where that right of the ability to participate, the right of freedom of speech, was fundamentally protected by this Chamber.

* (1720)

I will never forget personally speaking on a point of order that was raised on Meech Lake; the then-Speaker Rocan made an historic ruling which, as we were considering the Constitution of this country and the fate of the nation in some ways--at least, it seemed that way at the time--we stood for the procedures, for the principles of this House, in this particular case, in terms of the requirement of notice which in itself is rooted in the right of freedom of speech. That statement was a statement made by this parliamentary Chamber, but, ironically, it was, in many ways, historically a statement that was made by and with First Nations.

It was appropriate because I believe, throughout the history of Canada, since the first contact between Europeans and between aboriginal people, there has been a fundamental respect shown by aboriginal people for the traditions, whether it be of then Britain, later France, or whether it be the traditions of Canada, including our system of laws, including our parliamentary system. It is a respect, Madam Speaker, that has survived the experience of the reserve system. It has survived the experience of treaties which have not been, even to this day, fully acknowledged and recognized in terms of the obligations that apply to those treaties. That respect survived through to the discussion of the Constitution of Canada in this Chamber in 1990, and I believe, by the participation today of First Nations members, aboriginal members, it survives to this day.

Madam Speaker, those members who are elected to this House, whether they be aboriginal, whether they be new Canadians, the many people who have come to this country, whether they be Canadians who have settled in Canada or in Manitoba for generations, we all share one thing in common when we seek election to this Chamber, and that is the ability to practise the most fundamental principle not only of parliamentary law but of democracy, that is, the freedom of speech.

Madam Speaker, I raise this matter of privilege today because I am concerned that unless this House meets--and I am going to be suggesting in my motion which I will be bringing in on behalf of all members of our caucus who feel very strongly about this that we take a step back from any new restrictions on the right of the freedom of speech and that we meet in the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections and we meet in an open forum and that we meet with open hearts to discuss where we proceed. I can say that unless we do that--I know already there is a great deal of concern by a number of members I have spoken to about why they are in this place. That should never happen.

No matter what happens in this place, this Legislature, all members of this House, duly elected by the people of Manitoba, should always feel that they have the ability to speak out on behalf of the people who elected them. That may mean at times harsh words. That may mean at times strong words. It may involve the use of such terms as "racist, sexist," maybe other terms that may be applied, respecting the fact that we all agree that there should never be a role in this Chamber for personal attacks using those words.

There is still a role, I would suggest, not only a role, a fundamental obligation, for all of us to speak out on those types of issues. I stress that it is fundamental that we be able to do so not only for other jurisdictions, not only for other provinces. If it is good enough for us to stand in this Chamber and say that the comments made by Jacques Parizeau were racist on the night of the referendum, which I believe they were, Madam Speaker, if a future leader of this province was to make the same comments or similar comments, I would say we would have to, under any standards of democracy and responsibility, apply the same rules that we would apply to Jacques Parizeau to this House and any actions taken by a government, any policies of a government. If we can say that the policies of a government, statements of a government in Quebec are racist, we have to have that ability to do so here.

It may be the subject of strong debate, but that is what we are here for in the same way that we have debated many issues in this House that were the subject of strong words and of debate. I remember this because I sat in this House. I mention Meech Lake when we went through the constitutional issue with the French language issue 1982-83-84. Madam Speaker, I remember the echoes coming from members of the Conservative Party then talking about freedom of speech. They rang the bells for weeks on end for what they considered to be something that was important to respect the right of freedom of speech.

Madam Speaker, there were a lot of heated moments in this House. There were a lot of strong words used, but I do not think anyone at any point in time on any side of the House ever questioned the right of all 57 members of this Legislature to speak out on that issue. That is why I am rising on this matter today. This is a fundamental privilege, the privilege, the right of freedom of speech.

We wish to have this matter dealt with by the Legislature itself, because the Legislature is the final authority in terms of matters of privilege. I would urge you to consider this to be a prima facie case and to put this matter to the House, and I would urge all members of the House to support the motion that I am about to move. I recognize, Madam Speaker, that it may be difficult for some members across the way to do so, but I think when they consider what is at stake and the importance, I believe, of making sure there is a place in this House for all members, all 57 members, and there is a place in this House to raise fundamental issues including issues of racism and sexism.

I think we can all come together collectively to ensure that we do not have restrictions on our right of the freedom of speech and that is why, Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett), that the question of the freedom of speech of members of this House be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, it is a very difficult issue that the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) has brought forward, the opposition House leader, and we take all matters of privilege, as all members do, very seriously. It was a very difficult ruling. There is no doubt about that, and I am hoping to be able to add some light in terms of why it is the three members of the Liberal caucus felt that it was important to support the Speaker on her ruling.

Madam Speaker, I listened very attentively to what the member for Thompson has said and, in essence, with respect to the motion itself, I would be quite supportive of a standing committee, if you like, or any group--and hopefully that group would be made up of representation from all members of this Chamber. I hope the member for Thompson and the government side would see fit to ensure that if in fact it does occur that there is representation from all three blocs, if you like, inside the Chamber.

Freedom of speech is found in Beauchesne's on page 22. I would like to cite Beauchesne's Clause 77: "Freedom of speech does not mean that Members have an unlimited or unrestrained right to speak on every issue. The rules of the House impose limits on participation of Members and it is the duty of the Speaker to restrain those who abuse the rules."

Is this a question of freedom of speech, Madam Speaker? One has to be very careful, no doubt, with words that are being used, Beauchesne's will tell you, and I am going to refer to many of those words, which are ruled as being unparliamentary. I can speak first-hand from debates, for example, that have occurred in the past, whether it was final offer selection or other actions that our caucus, both as official opposition, as a third party and current group where allegations or thoughts were thrown off to me personally, directly, because of some of the actions that I had taken in terms of, I am going to lose my seat, or, we are out after you, you are next. Those sorts of comments. Those kinds of comments many might interpret as trying to intimidate, to limit a particular speaker from being able to say what they really want to be able to say.

What I want to focus on is the actual words, if I may, the right to use some of the words inside the Chamber. Beauchesne's is a book from which the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) almost on a daily basis stands up and quotes, the government quotes from and, on many occasions over the years, I, too, have quoted from. I would turn to page 144 and cite Citation 489. Since 1958, it has been ruled unparliamentary to use the following expressions: "deceive"--and there is a good, healthy list, Madam Speaker--"illegal," "irresponsible members," "lie," "lies," "mislead."

* (1730)

Madam Speaker, it is a very lengthy list, and Beauchesne's is very clear in the sense that it is saying, it is being ruled unparliamentary to use these following expressions.

Well, Madam Speaker, I am wondering if there is anyone inside this Chamber that can stand up and tell me that they have never used a word that is classified as unparliamentary according to that particular definition. I would challenge anyone to do that.

If we look further into Beauchesne's, again, page 149, Citation 492 says: Here are a list of words in which Speakers have intervened in some way or another.

Again, it is a very lengthy list: "cheating," "corrupt," "cover-up," "distorting," "honourable lady," "liar," "lies," "manslaughter," "racist."

Madam Speaker, these are again words I would challenge--maybe every member has not used each and every of those words that I have listed, but again I believe very firmly, because I have sat in this Chamber and I have listened to many debates over the years, that there is no one virtually almost, and there might be the odd exception, I guess, but I would challenge individual members, in particular the member for Thompson and whoever else might speak on this matter of privilege, whether or not they have ever used a word of this nature.

Well, Madam Speaker, why is it that I choose to point out those particular citations? Because I am going to refer members again to page 149 and quote Beauchesne's 491. And this is what I believe is very important for all of us to understand: The Speaker has consistently ruled that language used in the House should be temperate and worthy of the place in which it is spoken. No language is, by virtue of any list, acceptable or unacceptable. A word which appears which is parliamentary in one context may cause disorder in another context, and therefore be unparliamentary.

I was present and I cannot recall verbatim exactly what occurred on that particular day, but I have experienced first-hand, because I sit between the New Democratic Party and the government, and some of the comments that I have heard in the past going back and forth, and Madam Speaker, let there be no doubt, "racist," "racism," those are very strong words, and I believe probably if you check Hansard I myself might have used them.

I think what is important is the context in which they have been said. I have seen the member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin) hammer at his desk and point and mouth out words to the government. I have seen that. I have seen the government, the Premier himself do likewise. In fact, on one occasion, both of them withdrew their comments, as was pointed out.

It hurts me greatly to believe that I would be in favour of trying to say or to limit an individual's rights and freedoms to be able to speak and say whatever it is that they want. I would not want a member in particular, whether it is the member for Thompson or the government House leader, to stand up every time they hear me use the word "deceive," because likely I have used it on numerous occasions. Technically, according to Beauchesne's, they could stand up and they could say, the member for Inkster has used the word "deceived."

Madam Speaker, it depends on the context in which it has been expressed. There are words that are very strong. If you say to any minister or you say to me, personally, or if you even make the infraction that I am a liar or imply that I am a liar because a caucus has made a decision and I did not stand for it or to personally attribute something to me, it hurts.

Madam Speaker, I helped develop the Liberal Party's policy. And if you say a policy is racist, well, nothing prevents you from being able to say the word "racist" or "liar" outside of this Chamber. You can say it all you want outside of the Chamber. You can say whatever it is that you want. Inside the Chamber, the rules--

Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): You can get sued for libel.

Mr. Lamoureux: Well, the member for Burrows says you can get sued for libel outside the Chamber. That means if you use it outside the Chamber you better make sure you are being accurate and you have your facts straight.

The point of having freedom of speech is something which we should all applaud within the Chamber but there are, through Beauchesne's, many words that are ruled as being out, as being ruled as out of order. That is why I fall back on the rule that says it depends on the context in which it is being used.

Madam Speaker, I believe that a matter of privilege, or if we were to peruse Hansard over the last number of years, there are a lot of people that potentially could have been named from this Chamber. I do not think it is a happy day for the Manitoba Legislature. I do not think that it was a positive thing that a member had to be named. This is the first time that I have experienced it in the seven-plus years that I have been here.

Madam Speaker, I do not want to send the wrong message to the public. There are some words that are very strong. Given the context in which you put those words, if they are put and deemed put in such a fashion, that the Speaker or government or opposition members feel that they have been slighted in whatever fashion, they can stand up on a point of order and ask that those words be withdrawn. If in fact the member concurs with that, they will stand up, and I have seen it on numerous occasions, and they will withdraw those words. Individuals felt slighted. There are those words that are very strong. If we go around as legislators and say, for example, outside in the hall, that this government is racist, this government lies, this government does this, and you know I am more than happy to point out many areas where this government has done a bad job. One might even question it in terms of being borderline racist, but I am concerned about the children that are out there, the future generations and so forth, and there has to be some sort of decorum that applies. I could be accused of not necessarily adding to decorum at times inside the Chamber, but if it is brought to my attention, I do what I can to rectify something that I have said.

In fact, Madam Speaker, I believe it was last June you and I, some might say, had a bit of a tiff. I recall myself, because the government got me so upset, saying something and heckling something over, and it was pointed out to me and I stood up to withdraw because I felt that it was not appropriate, because I have to look at it in the sense of what context was it said. I do not want to do anything, and I would not want to obligate my two caucus colleagues to do anything that is going to limit freedom of speech inside this Chamber, and I trust--and that is why I say I do not have too much of a problem with the motion.

* (1740)

I am overwhelmed and would be pleased to be able to participate in a committee that would actually look at this issue. There are other issues that I would like to look at, and would hope that all members would take those same sorts of principled stands.

With those few words, Madam Speaker, as I have indicated our position on this particular motion, we will leave it at that. Thank you.

Mr. Ernst: Madam Speaker, the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) was very eloquent with respect to his raising this matter of privilege, and the foundation of raising that matter of privilege borders, I think, very closely on reflecting on your ruling, a matter which had been voted on by this House earlier and a matter--

Point of Order

Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, the minister is making a very serious charge, and I think if he will peruse Hansard and he will recall what I said, I made it very clear that we were not in any way challenging a ruling that we had previously challenged, which was decided upon by this House and were referring to the issue of freedom of speech. I would ask that the minister not leave that statement on the record and withdraw it. We dealt very clearly with what we thought was a matter of privilege, and we did not get into debate on a previous point of order.

Mr. Ernst: On the same point of order, if the member feels that somehow my statement created a problem or suggested--I said, came perilously close, I did not say it did to reflect on you really, Madam Speaker, but I am prepared to withdraw that.

Madam Speaker: I thank the honourable government House leader.

* * *

Mr. Ernst: Madam Speaker, it has been a long day. The question of freedom of speech is vital to any democratic process, any democratic society. All of us here cherish that freedom of speech, the right to bring the views of different kinds, on a variety of issues to this House on a daily basis.

The freedom of speech in any democratic society is the foundation of that society. However, it is not a licence to say anything you want to say. It is not a licence to simply carry on certain statements from time to time, and it is actually quite significantly controlled by the very history and the very quotations that the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) referred to.

Madam Speaker, Beauchesne has, under Sections 485 through 490, referred to a number of issues surrounding the use of certain words with respect to debate in the House. It is not a curtailment of freedom of speech at all, because there are dozens and dozens and dozens of words and phrases cited in Beauchesne and particularly through Sections 488, 489 and 490 that refer to what may and may not be said as part of parliamentary conduct, not a question of freedom of speech, not a restriction on the freedom of speech, but in the way it is said and the words that are used.

Issues can be raised, statements can be made, to obtain--the English language has many, many statements, many, many words that can be used to mean a variety of things. But history, tradition, precedent has referred to a number of words and statements and phrases that have been ruled unparliamentary by previous Speakers.

We tend to abide by those histories and traditions and precedents as the guidelines for which we operate in this Chamber and other similar Chambers under the British parliamentary system. But, Madam Speaker, because we are restricted in using certain words--now, I may feel if someone in this House makes a statement that I do not agree with and I think is totally inaccurate, I may feel that I would like to stand up and call that person a liar, but I cannot because Beauchesne says that all members are honourable members in this House, and you cannot use that kind of word.

You cannot use a number of other words, words that I find--some are a little historically out of date because not used in the vernacular any more, but nonetheless, as vernaculars change, as expressions of derision change, as new and inventive things happen over a period of time, new words need to be added to rulings of Speakers. That is the purpose of having a Speaker in this Chamber. That is the purpose of having those historical precedents by which to follow, to give us some method, some guideline, some parameter, if you will, around which members of Legislative Assemblies and Parliaments can operate, following again Beauchesne's Citation 1, which, in part, says, to secure the transaction of public business in an orderly manner.

If we are going to conduct it in an orderly manner, then we need to have those parameters, those guidelines in order to properly address the question in this House. I do not think for a moment that the question of a particular word constitutes a question of privilege, I think, Madam Speaker, refers simply to the question of the use of certain words that are found to be unparliamentary.

We labour every single day in this House under certain restrictions. We are not free. Freedom of speech is an adject term, and I suppose if I had a dictionary I could quote from it as to what it means. But the fact of the matter is no one is restricting the use of words that are deemed to be parliamentary in any question raised in this House dealing with, in the case of, let us say, government policy.

All kinds of attacks occur here every day on government policy. Members, in Question Period, raise with ministers on this side of the House certain policies that they think are wrong, are not in the best interests, in their view, of the public. They use all kinds of terminology to deal with those issues. So no one is restricting any freedom of speech here. The question is, what words can you use in describing what you call certain individual types of actions by government, by a party or by a member?

If we are going to use words such as racism in this House--and you have ruled today that such words should not be used. Of course, with respect to individuals, the use of that word is clearly established, and I think there is no argument from the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) or for that matter from the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) or any other member in this House as to the propriety of the use of that word when it relates to an individual.

But at the same time, Madam Speaker, when you refer to it as a policy of the government, in my view it refers to all members on the government side. It refers to all people who are elected as members of a particular party related to the operation of a government in this province under our parliamentary system.

So it reflects, Madam Speaker, not just on one individual. It reflects on all individuals on this side of the House, or were it that another political party had formed the government, then it would reflect on any government, and it would reflect on all the members of the government, and I find that to be highly offensive, because I have my own views as to what I believe and they do not encompass racism, and if I am collectively accused, as opposed to individually accused, then I find that offensive, and I find that, quite frankly, a breach of my privilege as a member of the House.

Madam Speaker, we have to be careful to determine what is freedom of speech and what are unparliamentary references, and we labour, as I said, under that restriction each and every day. I would love to be able to say from time to time some of the words that are prohibited in Beauchesne when certain activities occur in this Chamber, and I am sure every member in the House here would love to use some of the terms that are found in Beauchesne that are deemed to be unparliamentary.

But, Madam Speaker, if we are to be legislators, if we are to be lawmakers in this province, and that is what the people elected us to do, and that is the reason we labour in this Chamber everyday, if we are to do that, then we have to abide by laws that we make, and those laws for the use of language in this Chamber are primarily found here in this book, Beauchesne. That seems to be the primary reference book for the kinds of parameters that are necessary to conduct, as Citation 1 says: " . . . to secure the transaction of public business in an orderly manner;".

* (1750)

Now, Madam Speaker, we deal with Beauchesne's Citations 488 through 490. It lists, as I said, in here dozens of words and phrases that have been found historically to not be found parliamentary and not to be used within the context of a parliamentary debate.

Madam Speaker, those words, and I could quote a number of them, some as I said earlier which are not necessarily so much in use in today's vernacular but nonetheless have been recorded over time, and that is the precedent-setting nature of the kinds of things that occur in our parliamentary system.

We find, Madam Speaker, every so often an inventive new creation, and when some of those inventive new creations come along, it is necessary to provide for their limited or excluded use in this Chamber as the case may be, because not everything under Beauchesne's Sections 488 through 490 are necessarily unparliamentary. There are lists of words in there that are clearly unparliamentary, lists of phrases that are clearly unparliamentary, but on the other hand, there are lists of words and phrases that may be unparliamentary or have been ruled both parliamentary and unparliamentary.

So, Madam Speaker, as we labour in our work here in the Chamber, there are these words that from time to time fall into this category of unparliamentary and ought not to be used, and I think for a very good reason, because all members here are honourable members, and that is the premise by which we operate. They are constantly reminded of that from time to time when interjections take place that cause some trepidation amongst certain persons, but we are reminded of that on a regular basis both by yourself and previous Speakers, that all members are honourable members.

So, Madam Speaker, to refer to one honourable member or a number of honourable members in a certain manner that has been decided upon as being inappropriate, then it is appropriate to include those kinds of things under unparliamentary language, and in no way at all, no way at all, does it ever reflect on a question of freedom of speech.

Madam Speaker, the member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) referred a moment ago from her seat to the question of policies. Well, the question of policies is quite correct. There are hundreds, hundreds of adjectives in use in the English language today which are parliamentary and which could reflect in a certain manner upon those who develop those policies or those who pass those policies and implement those policies and bring those policies forward for implementation in the public if they are not happy with them. If they are not happy with those policies, there are ways and means of describing them without reflecting upon individuals in certain ways that have been ruled inappropriate and unparliamentary.

So there is no question, Madam Speaker, that the issue that the member raises, although important and although necessary to be dealt with from time to time by a collective of the members of the House to try and determine what may or may not be acceptable, but it has nothing to do with freedom of speech. It has to do with what is acceptable as far as members are concerned who are all honourable. It has to do with what generally speaking in the vernacular today is referred to as being politically correct, small "p" because it does not refer to the political aspects of politics per se in the House. It has to do with what is acceptable today in society for references.

The member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), in fact, raised a number of those kinds of words, but while he raised those kinds of words, and I would concur with what the member for Thompson said with respect to those words, the fact of the matter is, it is not a restriction of freedom of speech. It is a question of what is acceptable today in society, and those words tend to translate from society through to this Chamber and wind up as the words that are contained in Beauchesne's Sections 488 and 489 or 490, wind up on the list of other terms that are parliamentary, unparliamentary or can be considered, depending upon the context, on either kind of list.

So, Madam Speaker, today is not a happy day. No one, I think, enjoyed the proceedings that occurred this afternoon, but, at the same time, we are the lawmakers of this province. If we cannot obey the laws, how on Earth are we going to expect the public out there to obey the laws? I mean, let us face it. In a democratic process, in a democratic society, laws are only effective because the public want to obey them, not because they have to obey them. If laws had to be enforced constantly, we would have to have one police person for every citizen to ensure the law was in fact enforced. From time to time, if the police person did not want to obey the laws, then we would have to have another police person for that police person.

So the essence of a democratic society is that we have laws because we want to obey those laws, and certainly we in this Chamber need to set that example. If we are going to create a law and expect the public to obey that law, to go out after passing a law in this particular Chamber to say to the public, this is the law, and you are going to have to obey it because that is the collective wisdom of this House, then we ought to be the first to hold up the example, not the last. We ought not to decide that we are going to disobey the law.

Madam Speaker, the question of freedom of speech, as the member has raised in his question of privilege, I submit is not a question of privilege at all. Nonetheless, it is an important question, an important question that perhaps collectively needs to be dealt with by members of this House. Well, I suspect, Madam Speaker, you will take this matter under advisement and consider whether the question of privilege has been found or not and whether a prima facie case has been made by the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton). I suspect that, from at least my perspective, having listened very intently to what the member for Thompson said, that it is not a question--a prima facie case has not been made by the member for Thompson with respect to a question of privilege.

Madam Speaker, regardless of what ultimately your ruling decides, having experienced what has gone on here this day in this House, obviously, a discussion needs to take place amongst all members. How that occurs, I am prepared to discuss with the opposition House leader (Mr. Ashton) at a little later time, once everyone has had a chance to perhaps cool out a bit. I suspect that a discussion would be a healthy thing for all members of this House.

* (1800)

Madam Speaker, regardless, I think it is sufficiently important that I am prepared to discuss with the opposition House leader the question of calling--perhaps the committee on rules of the House might be the most appropriate committee to meet perhaps intersessionally with respect to this issue to discuss the kinds of things that we need to discuss with respect to what can be said and what should be said in the House and what should not. That is not going to do away with the precedent, nor would quite frankly a finding that the member's matter of privilege, having it referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, it is unlikely that that is going to change anything either in the sense that we still operate in the House.

Perhaps, Madam Speaker, there might be willingness of the House to continue for a couple more minutes and I will be finished.

An Honourable Member: Leave not to call it six?

Madam Speaker: Is there leave of the House not to see the clock so the honourable government House leader can finish his remarks?

Mr. Ashton: On that, there are a number of other members who wish to provide advice to you on this matter, so I am just wondering if we may--

Mr. Ernst: Well, Madam Speaker, in that case, then I will withdraw my request for leave and we will continue this matter tomorrow.

Madam Speaker: I thank all honourable members for their advice and I indeed will take this under advisement.

The hour being past 6 p.m., this House is adjourned and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow (Thursday).