Debates of June 3rd, 1999

Supply

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, if my hon. colleague believes that the pursuit of the current treaty negotiations is a good thing, how does he account for the fact that treaties have been negotiated in hundreds and hundreds of reserves for people east of the Rockies?

When one compares the situation of reserves east of the Rockies with the reserves in British Columbia, one finds little or no difference between the condition of the people in both those reserves. Therefore one can assume that the negotiation of treaties in and of themselves is not a way toward political and economic emancipation for these people.

Mr. Clark, the Premier of British Columbia, mentioned before enacting closure in the legislature that indeed a new third level of government was be creating and that this level of government would be required to negotiate the treaties with the new levels of government? This new third level of government and the ensuing increase of bureaucracy in the provincial government will swallow up a lot of money that could better be used to help the aboriginal people on the ground. Does the hon. member agree with those comments?

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I will answer the second question first. Both questions of the hon. member are excellent questions. They are exactly the types of questions we need to ask in this debate.

On the third level of government, I agree we are establishing a third level of government. It is something beyond what has been discussed in the Parliament of Canada or in the treaty process previously. It is not a municipal style of government similar to what the Sechelt agreement or the Musqueam agreement brought in. It is a step further that we all need to look at very carefully and cautiously. We must all recognize exactly what it is.

On the first question, I do not think we can judge the treaties signed or not signed in eastern Canada. All of eastern Canada does not have a treaty process in place. We cannot judge treaty 8, treaty 6, treaty 4 or treaty 2, but we can look at first nations communities across the country.

I ask the hon. member whether the problem is the treaty process or the lack of some type of completion in the treaty process. Has it been the restrictions of the Indian Act, which at best has been a piece of prejudiced legislation and at worst probably supported an apartheid type of regime?

I would tend to put more blame on the Indian Act and less on the treaty process. If we bring in treaties that have some finality to them and we give some empowerment to first nations that allows them to carry on in some economic regime and build some power base for themselves to benefit from the fruits of their labour, as all Canadians benefit from the fruits of their labour, then I think we have done something.

I would agree that both questions are good questions. I am not answering completely the first one because I think it is a part of future debate.

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his concise answer. Does the hon. member feel that we can scrap the Indian Act and pursue a process of economic emancipation and independence without necessarily pursuing political independence?

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure we can scrap the Indian Act by snapping our fingers. I think it is much more complicated than that. The exact reason the P.C. Party supported Bill C-49 is that it takes first nations out from under the Indian Act and allows them to have control of their own resources on their own reserves without going to the minister and without going through the Indian Act.

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to the motion. It affects the people in my province of British Columbia, but the fact is that it will affect Canadians from coast to coast. This is the template that will be used to negotiate more than 120 agreements within my province and to negotiate agreements across the country as treaties will be renegotiated as a result of the Nisga'a agreement.

I congratulate the member for Skeena, the member for Wild Rose and other colleagues who have done much to bring the plight of aboriginal people to the forefront.

We have been engaging in a situation that has kept the political foot on the necks of the most impoverished people in the country. Through political manoeuvring for 140 years the Indian Act has kept a political foot on the necks of aboriginal people.

Our common objective is to change the egregious situation which affects aboriginal people from coast to coast on and off reserve. They suffer from the highest rates of suicide, murder, tuberculosis, diabetes, social impoverishment and child abuse in the country. These terrible situations are symptoms of a much larger problem.

The problem is that aboriginal people have been made wards of the government and the country. We have pursued a course of segregation and separation which has kept aboriginal people separate and apart from the rest of society. We are very happy that within the constitution there are requirements to ensure aboriginal people have their culture, language and lives in the traditional ways expressed and entrenched within that document.

We cannot, nor should we, ever go back to the situation that existed years ago when the culture, language and basic rights of these people were trampled upon. However, what we are doing right now through the Nisga'a agreement will not make things better. It will make things worse. For that reason the Reform Party is opposing the Nisga'a deal.

At the end of the day our common objective is to improve the terrible situation which exists on aboriginal reserves. However, how we will do it is where we differ, and I will get into that a bit later.

I have seen people who have been raped, abused, murdered. Children have been abused, shot, knifed. People are impoverished and live in terrible conditions and circumstances which I have not seen since I worked in Africa. These circumstances exist in our country, a country that we believe and are told by the United Nations is the best country in the world. That may be so for a part of our population, but clearly it is not so for aboriginal people.

We want to engage in a process of economic and political emancipation and political integration for aboriginal people. Economic emancipation is not conditional upon political independence. That is what the Nisga'a agreement puts together. It is political independence to a degree because it creates a new level of government. One of the primary proponents of the Nisga'a deal, Mr. Glen Clark, premier of British Columbia, said in the legislature that the Nisga'a deal is going to entrench a third level of government.

We also oppose this because the deal entrenches political and economic power in the hands of a few. It entrenches it in the hands of the leadership of the Nisga'a people. It does not entrench it in the hands of the rank and file people. What we have seen in our country for 140 years, and what we see today and will see tomorrow if the deal goes through, is that the rank and file aboriginal people are excluded from the power and the wealth that has accrued to them.

There are examples of aboriginal reserves that operate very well because they have a very powerful, strong and fair leadership that works for the people. Unfortunately that is not so in many cases across the country. The auditor general has repeatedly mentioned the plight of grassroots aboriginal people, their suffering and the abuses in some cases by aboriginal leaderships. The aboriginal leaderships in too many communities are taking the resources and the wealth that have accrued to them through our system and are not sharing them properly with their people.

If we are going to change and improve the health and welfare of aboriginal people, rather than pursue a Nisga'a deal, let us work with them and give them the tools to take care of themselves. It does not matter whether we are aboriginal or non-aboriginal, we have to be able to contribute to our families, to ourselves and to our society if we are going to have the pride and self-respect necessary to carry on.

If we were wards of the federal government, the provincial government and the aboriginal leaderships and resources were given to us by virtue of who we were without working for them, we would not have the pride and self-respect which is necessary to change the terrible dislocates within these communities. Pride and self-respect come from being able to contribute to ourselves, to our families and to our communities. Rank and file aboriginal people have not had that opportunity.

Rather than pursue the Nisga'a deal that is going to cost the taxpayers more than $500 million and which will drain limited resources to develop a bureaucracy within provincial governments and within an aboriginal structure, would it not make more sense to use that money for health care for these people and to give these people skills training to become productive employable members in their society?

We are not just talking about the people on reserve. We cannot forget the large numbers of aboriginal people who flocked to the city to look for hope. They fled the reserves where they had no hope yet in the cities and without the skills and tools to survive they find themselves in the same situation they were in or worse.

I have pleaded with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to please look into the situation occurring on the reserves today. Please act on behalf of these people. Do not ignore their pleas for help. Do not continually tell the grassroots aboriginal people to go to the police or their leadership, who in many cases are strangling their own people. She must help them.

Over $7 billion is poured into aboriginal affairs, yet what do these people have to show for it? In many cases their situation now is more pitiful than it was five, ten or twenty years ago. Money is not the cure. Political independence is not the cure. The Nisga'a deal is not the cure. It is in ensuring that aboriginal people have the power and the responsibility to take care of themselves and their families in their communities. Therein lies the opportunity, the hope and the chance for them to end a situation that is an embarrassment for everybody in the House, but more important is a terrible tragedy and a pain for the people who endure it.

The Nisga'a deal fails on many counts, as my hon. colleague from Skeena and others have mentioned. It fails to provide for the people. It fails to ensure that the people have the power. It fails to ensure that we have a workable situation for both aboriginals and non-aboriginals.

At the end of the day, we must work together to build a stronger society. Separated we will sink; together we will survive and do well. The Nisga'a deal unfortunately segregates aboriginals and non-aboriginals. It moves them apart. It will only further the prejudice aboriginal people endure. That is not good and it needs to change.

We hope that the government looks at this deal again. We hope it does not pass the Nisga'a deal. We hope it invests in aboriginal people. We hope it listens to the grassroots aboriginal people and not necessarily to their leadership. We hope it puts the obligation, responsibility and accountability on the leadership to make sure the resources for the people are going to be used for the betterment of them and not merely put into a huge sinkhole that is not going to benefit the aboriginal people at all.

[David Iftody, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his comments. I know he has spoken on these issues before.

I would like to take note of his broad sweeping approach to the discussions. He talked about economic emancipation for aboriginal people and said that if they are just given resources it is not helpful to them, that it creates poor character, as it were. He also mentioned that as a result of all this the aboriginal people flock to the cities as economic refugees, as it were.

I would like some clarification. Could the hon. member tell the House precisely what he meant when he said that just giving resources to the reserves somehow diminishes the character of the aboriginal people, that something happens to them and they become lazy and so on and so forth? Could he perhaps clarify for the House precisely what he meant by that?

The hon. member is a physician and one who has spent time working with aboriginal people. If he could quickly outline just two points on that second matter, what would his plans be for economic development for some of our first nations communities? What would he advise the Canadian people to do?

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for his questions. Unfortunately, he misinterpreted my statements but I will be happy to correct that.

Regardless of a person's race, giving things to people creates an economic welfare state. We have created an institutionalized welfare state for aboriginal people by giving them things. We need to give people, aboriginal or non-aboriginal, the power to provide for themselves.

I suggest we ensure that aboriginal people have the skills and the technology to provide for themselves, that we make a huge investment in health care and education for the people and that there be an obligation to move forward from that. I suggest also that we scrap the racist Indian Act, that we treat aboriginal people and non-aboriginal with the same rights and responsibilities.

I have addressed the two points. Scrap the Indian Act. Invest in economic opportunities. Also we must ensure that there are political opportunities along the lines of the municipal powers that non-aboriginals have.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, my understanding is that in the fresh start booklet the Reform Party advocates that aboriginal communities should resemble or be structured more or less in the same way as a municipality. My understanding at least in my reading of the Nisga'a deal is that is exactly the goal the negotiators of the Nisga'a deal set out to achieve. The Nisga'a will have a government comparable to a municipality and subject to the Canadian constitution.

Can the member point out where the Nisga'a deal fails to set out a structure like a municipality which would be in keeping with Reform's fresh start manual?

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Madam Speaker, the powers in the words of the premier of British Columbia create a new third level of government. Clearly this is not a municipal government. Municipal governments are given powers by the province. The province has the right to take the powers away. This is not the case in this situation.

The powers the Nisga'a government would have would fall under provincial and federal levels. Furthermore, where there is a conflict between federal, provincial and Nisga'a powers, the Nisga'a powers would supersede the federal and provincial powers. Those are the two clearest examples.

The bottom line is not the pursuit of political independence. The pursuit should be to create economic independence for aboriginal people by aboriginal people, political emancipation not political independence, but political integration with non-aboriginal people. Only if we engage in political and economic integration while ensuring that aboriginal people have their traditional rights preserved as is done under section 35 of the constitution, will we be able to move forward with a liveable and effective society for everybody in the future.

[John Duncan, Reform, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Madam Speaker, the challenge for me in speaking to the official opposition motion on the Nisga'a agreement is how I address something in 10 minutes that I have been talking about since 1995.

I believe that both levels of government in their eagerness to embrace the Nisga'a agreement have manipulated the facts and misrepresented the public interest. The federal government is imposing on British Columbia a deal it was not prepared to impose on itself in the Yukon or the Northwest Territories. The federal government is imposing on Canadians a deal with the Nisga'a that the separatists in Quebec would welcome with open arms. Contrast this with the federal posture toward Toronto, a city state that Ottawa refuses to recognize.

The B.C. government through its eagerness is leaving hundreds of millions of dollars worth of federal transfers on the table by virtue of a poorly configured, poorly negotiated and one-sided federal-provincial cost sharing memorandum for treaties. The B.C. government is a willing participant in an agreement that threatens the fiscal integrity of its citizens. The official opposition, federally and provincially, oppose the current configuration of the agreement.

The great irony is that upon either party forming a government, their hands are tied. The final agreement states that no party, federal, provincial or Nisga'a, may challenge any provisions of the agreement and any amendments require the consent of all three parties. That is a veto. The Nisga'a agreement is to prevail over federal or provincial law in the event of inconsistency or conflict. We must remember Meech Lake and Charlottetown.

In March 1995, I presented my analysis of the Nisga'a deal at that time largely from an evaluation of the forest resource. I projected the costs of settling land claims in British Columbia at $8.5 billion. The provincial aboriginal affairs minister said that I was extrapolating figures from various sources in order to scare people. Just seven months later the same minister stated that the total B.C. compensation package would exceed $10 billion. Let us remember that I said $8.5 billion just months earlier. It was a very puzzling admission given his earlier statement and not a statement to inspire confidence in the negotiators. Now some analysts are forecasting costs to exceed $20 billion.

The department of Indian affairs bureaucracy has used treaty making as an excuse to avoid responsibility and to cover its total failure at representing the interests of rank and file band members. It has had a fixation on chiefs and high visibility events and politics has continued to take precedence over competent management.

Native Indians have the worst statistics in the country. They deserve better. Canadians in general and the rank and file native population clearly place priority on solving social problems. Instead, the agenda has been hijacked by academics, lawyers, advisers, consultants and self-serving interests in large part so that the focus has been on seeking unconstrained self-government.

At the end of 1996, the negotiators for the Nisga'a stated that their negotiation costs to date were $31 million. Many people will say that would have been better spent in giving several aboriginal communities clean drinking water.

In the past, I offered some specific recommendations to both senior governments. Contrary to statements by the minister, Reform is in the business of offering constructive alternatives. Federal and provincial negotiators are non-stakeholders in the results of the local negotiations in rural British Columbia because they are from Ottawa, Saskatchewan, Vancouver or Victoria. They should be at least regionally based individuals with some connection to the area under consideration.

The second point is finality. Contrary to public expectations, the arrangement entrenches special aboriginal interests on crown lands outside the Nisga'a settlement lands. The public expectation is that aboriginals would have equal rights with other Canadians outside the settlement lands.

The third point is that the agreement should clearly state that Nisga'a members will be covered by the Canadian Human Rights Act. Although this may follow from removing most provisions of the Indian Act, a clear statement that the Canadian Human Rights Act applies would be helpful. Currently, Indians living under the Indian Act cannot pursue a case of discrimination through the provisions of the Canadian Human Rights Act. They are excluded.

I will now talk about some specifics regarding the Nisga'a government. The agreement authorizes the Nisga'a to formulate and adopt their own constitution, which is exactly what Lucien Bouchard wants to do and this government rejects, at least for Quebec.

The lawmaking powers of the Nisga'a legislator are extensive and include: to decide Nisga'a citizenship, Nisga'a culture, environmental assessment projects on Nisga'a lands and assets; to protect public order, peace and safety; the administration of justice; taxation; forest, lands and resources; fisheries and wildlife; subsurface rights; provision of social services to Nisga'a citizens; health services on Nisga'a lands; adoption of Nisga'a children; child and family services; preschool to grade 12 education of Nisga'a citizens on Nisga'a lands; post-secondary education within Nisga'a lands; controlled possession, sale or consumption of intoxicants on Nisga'a lands; Nisga'a police services, including a Nisga'a police board; a Nisga'a court to administer Nisga'a laws and corrections centres.

If Lucien Bouchard was offered all this, would he say, “No thanks?” This list represents a major divestiture of legislative power from the Parliament of Canada to what is to be in effect the parliament of the Nisga'a central government.

Apart from the Nisga'a legislature, there will be a bureaucracy to administer Nisga'a laws, programs and institutions. The agreement calls for a number of boards to oversee a host of matters. With an adult Nisga'a population of about 1,200 residents in the area, one wonders who will not be working for the new government.

The new Nisga'a government is to be given the power to impose taxes on persons or businesses that own and have interest in land within the area. If such persons are non-Nisga'a, they cannot vote in Nisga'a government elections but they would pay taxes. This is a classic case of taxation without representation. It is racially based taxation.

Evelyn Gillespie, the NDP MLA for the Comox Valley, recently wrote that the Nisga'a final agreement provides the Nisga'a with a municipal style government. She said this knowing that the people fully support municipal powers, as do I. The reality is that no municipal government has any status under the constitution while the Nisga'a will. This is the third order of government sought by former Assembly of First Nations leader, Ovide Mercredi, and rejected by his own people and by a majority of Canadians in the referendum on the Charlottetown accord.

Nisga'a citizenship and not residency determines who votes. Would Jacques Parizeau not love to have that? The Nisga'a agreement retains one part only of the Indian Act. This is the very worst part, that which defines who is an Indian. The tragedy of the Indian Act is that registered Indians are treated differently by government than other Canadians, usually to their detriment. Why would anyone want to perpetuate this difference constitutionally? A Nisga'a committee will review bloodlines to protect prospective citizens. Incredibly this is what we are entrenching in our constitution.

Registered Indians are 2.5% of the B.C. population of whom half live on reserves or pursue what can be remotely considered to be a traditional native lifestyle. There must be a better way.

What would I do? I will summarize it this way. I would make the negotiating mandate public; compensate aboriginals for what the courts recognize as their modest aboriginal entitlement; establish aboriginal governments consistent with municipal style governments, similar to the Sechelt Indian government; subject the Nisga'a and all other native persons to the same tax system as other Canadians; ensure finality and certainty; and, keep it simple.

New Zealand eventually tired of a never-ending agenda and did just that.

[Raymond Chan, Liberal, Secretary of State (Asia-Pacific)]

Madam Speaker, I have one question for the Reform Party. If they are such believers in the rule of law and in the authority of the Supreme Court of Canada, then they have to accept all decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada and not choose between what things they like and what things they do not like.

The Supreme Court has said the constitution is legal and aboriginal rights are provided for in the constitution. This Nisga'a treaty is based on aboriginal rights that the courts continue to say that we have to negotiate what these aboriginal rights are. This is what this Nisga'a treaty is all about.

Does the Reform Party not know that there has already been a constitutional challenge in the B.C. court and the court has said that it would be more appropriate for the courts to consider questions related to the constitutionality of the treaty when the full legislative record is available to the courts for consideration.

Why do members of the Reform Party want to now, before passing legislation recognizing the treaty, refer it to the law courts? If they believe in the rule of law, and if our constitution gives aboriginal rights to natives, why would they say that those are not the rights they want? They do not want to give them any rights. They just want to abolish the Indian Act and treat everybody the same, denying aboriginals their legal rights? They are not such a big defender of rights for all as far as I can see.

[John Duncan, Reform, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Madam Speaker, that question was not to the Reform Party, it was to the member for Vancouver Island North. We recognize existing aboriginal rights as defined by section 35 of the constitution. We are quite aware of that. No one would argue the case.

We are aware of the judgments that have occurred in the supreme court. We are also aware of the myths that are propagated by the federal and provincial governments as to what constitutes the decision making by those courts and the spin that is put on those decision. The aboriginal entitlement, the modest compensation that has been put forward consistently by the Supreme Court of Canada, is far different from what is reflected in agreements such as the Nisga'a agreement.

I will point out to the member who posed the question that his very own government has supported a variety of agreements. In British Columbia we have, for example, the Sechelt Indian government, which has been in effect since 1985 or 1986. It is a municipal style government. I have no difficulty at all in endorsing the Sechelt agreement. It very much represents the rank and file members of that band, with all of the accountability and democracy very much in evidence.

Only the Liberal Party in this place would suggest, as the member did, that we can achieve equality by not treating everyone equally. I find this to be something I philosophically cannot buy into. We should in every way be attempting to move people together not split them farther apart. I think that is what divides the official opposition from the government on this issue.

[David Iftody, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Madam Speaker, I should give the House due notice that I am splitting my time with the member for Vancouver Quadra, who I know will be eager to speak to these issues and speak to them well and competently.

I am pleased to rise in my place to respond to the motion by the member for Skeena. Before I go into my written notes, I did not have an opportunity to ask the member for Vancouver Island North a question, but perhaps I can make a comment. He can respond privately to me later if he likes.

The point I want to make about the legislation we are contemplating here in the House and as part of the motion, is that it is not race based government at all. It is based on citizenry. Anyone can become a citizen of the Nisga'a place.

If the member for Skeena or the member for Vancouver Island North would like to undertake the process of becoming Nisga'a citizens, I could meet with the Nisga'a people. Being non-aboriginal persons themselves, I would like to inform the House that I would be more than willing to undertake that if they are willing. This would clearly and categorically demonstrate to them both that it is not race based government at all. If the member for Skeena would like to become a Nisga'a citizen, I would make that application for him beginning today.

The hon. member for Skeena, who put the motion for the opposition, has asked that the House recognize public concern in British Columbia over the Nisga'a treaty and self-government.

I say respectfully to my good friend that we on this side of the House fully acknowledge that Canadians in all parts of this country recognize the significance of the Nisga'a final agreement. We know that the Nisga'a treaty will bring us into a new chapter in Canadian history. Unlike the members opposite, we will not try to hold on to the ragged script that has governed our past.

Three of the members opposite used the words racist Indian Act. Perhaps they are correct.

Unlike the members opposite we will not try to hold on to these old ways of the past which they seem to fight against in their Reform Party rhetoric. We will not enter into this new chapter of Canada's story without due regard for what has come before.

We will respect the rights of individuals and minorities and will pay heed to the independence of the legislative and judicial branches of government. That is why the government could not in good faith accept the premise on which the opposition's motion is based, that we as legislators should abrogate our duty to address those matters of policy which shape Canada's history, its identity and its future.

It would be irresponsible for the government to take debate about the Nisga'a treaty from the hands of Canada's elected representatives and place it in the lap of the judiciary, a judiciary I might add that has encouraged this most recently in the Delgamuukw case. I ask the member to read the words of the supreme court justice and others who wrote that opinion to negotiate rather than litigate land claims.

The member spoke about the $31 million that was used, for example, for negotiations and said, astoundingly, that it should be used for sewer and water projects. I absolutely agree. If the member honestly believes that, would he then oppose his own party and help me here today in voting against this motion to stop what it wants to do with this motion which is to go back to court? It is preposterous. Let us recognize the opposition motion for what it really is, a failure to respect Canada's constitutional values which the Reform Party cannot, will not and has not embraced.

I remind members opposite of the decision of Mr. Justice Williamson of the Supreme Court of British Columbia in the recent Campbell case. In his reasons his lordship reviewed the basis on which a court might consider questions about the constitutionality of the Nisga'a treaty. Paragraph 11 of his lordship's decision affirms “the constitutional validity of the legislation”—and he is referring here to the Nisga'a final agreement—“arises only after the bill has been passed by both houses of parliament, received royal assent and become law”.

In other words his lordship is saying to this House that he respects the rule of law and parliament. He is giving us in deference to that, proper authority that parliament would debate this and pass this and the courts would then make their judgement on it. Why does the Reform Party want to usurp that proper jurisdictional ruling by the B.C. court?

[Lou Sekora, Liberal, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Because they are racist.

[David Iftody, Liberal, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, paragraph 11 of his lordship's decision affirms that the constitutional—

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Clearly the member from Coquitlam, in speaking out of turn was—

[Lou Sekora, Liberal, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

You are racist. You know you are.

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Madam Speaker, that language is clearly unparliamentary. I would ask the Chair to ask the member to apologize.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Yes, you are quite right. I ask the member to withdraw his remarks.

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. It is not enough for a member to stand up twice in this House and call another individual a racist; he does it and gets away with it. This kind of attitude and this kind of comment from the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam is absolutely unacceptable. I ask that you turf him out of here for a day.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on the same question of privilege.

The debate has been heated throughout the day. When other speakers were in the Chair, there were remarks made from this side of the House toward NDP speakers, swear words, a common vulgar word starting with a that I will not repeat. We did not bother raising a question of privilege or point of order because we recognize that in the passion of the debate things are said. They were not said into the record. They were said during the debate and not on any formal record.

Seeing as these issues were not dealt with I would ask that the same latitude—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

This is the last point of order on this. The hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford.

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, let me put this into perspective.

I think one of the ministers just said we say it. The fact is we do not say it. I refer you, Madam Speaker, to rules of debate in Beauchesne's sixth edition. In citation 492 the word racist is one of the prohibited words.

The NDP member who just spoke is talking about something else that is quite irrelevant to the discussion we will be having here for a little bit.

The individual opposite, the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam not only said it once but he said it twice knowing full well that when he uttered unparliamentary language in the House he could get away with it and all that was going to happen was that he would be asked to withdraw the comment.

Madam Speaker, I submit to you that it is not acceptable for an individual to keep repeating words and you asking for their withdrawal—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The Chair has already ruled on that. The member opposite has withdrawn his remark and we will leave it at that.

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is my understanding that when members rise in the House in order to be recognized for anything they may say they must be in their place.

The member from Port Coquitlam was not in his place. Therefore I believe that the Speaker is in order to request a withdrawal, at the very least, while the member is seated in his place. He uttered the word racist on two occasions and continues to.