Good afternoon. The committee will now come to order. Prior to getting into the business of the committee of the whole, I have a ruling to make which deals with yesterday's proceedings.

Chairman's Ruling

Prior to proceeding with business in committee today, I would like to provide my ruling on the point of order raised by the Member for Sahtu, Mr. Kakfwi.

A point of order was raised by Mr. Kakfwi during discussions of the Department of Health and Social Services capital appropriations. To remind Members, Mr. Kakfwi's point of order is contained on page 1236 of the unedited Hansard. And I quote, "Mr. Chairman, the previous speaker, Mr. Ng, from where I am sitting, appeared to be imputing a motive that perhaps the Minister or this government were allocating capital money and priorizing based on Ministers' ridings.

"I raise it as a point of order for two things: one, it's imputing a motive and two, it's raising the issue that has done a disservice to my community of Fort Norman once already in the fall of 1992. It appears to be raising it's ugly head again, so I want to raise this as a point of order."

I apologize, I said 1992, it should be, "1991. It's appears to be raising it's ugly head again, so I want to raise this as a point of order."

To put this point of order in context, I feel that it is important to comment on the remarks made by the honourable Member for Kitikmeot, Mr. Ng, on which the point of order was raised. Mr. Ng's comments are contained on page 1234 of the unedited Hansard, and I quote those as well.

"When I first learned of the deletion of the Gjoa Haven residence -- which affected the Kitikmeot because there is no form of elders' support at all in the whole region -- I seriously considered putting forward a motion for deletion of the Fort Resolution and Fort Norman elders' residences. The way I perceived it, it was unfair of the government. It may have been coincidence, but these are two Ministers' ridings and the needs of a have-not region, the Kitikmeot -- which has always been a have-not region -- were being neglected again."

The point of order raised by Mr. Kakfwi is addressed under rule 23(i) which states, "In debate a Member will be called to order by the Speaker if the Member imputes false or hidden motives to another Member." It is always difficult for the chair to rule on this type of matter. The chair should not be placed in the position of having to interpret any of the comments made by a Member. However, it is the chair's responsibility to call a

Member to order if there is a clear and explicit comment or comments made that would be an infraction of rule 23 (i).

In reviewing the Hansard, I am of the opinion that the comments made by Mr. Ng were not explicit enough to be an infraction of this rule, as his comments were prefaced with, "the way I perceived it" and, "it may have been coincidence." Therefore, Mr. Kakfwi does not have a point of order on his first issue.

However, as we are all honourable Members, I would caution all Members to be conscientious of their comments made in debate, so as to ensure that another Member doesn't misunderstand their comments and intentions. As to his second issue that gave rise to the point of order, it is clear that there is no point of order on the issue, as this was just a point of debate.

Therefore, Mr. Kakfwi, I find that you don't have a point of order.

What is the wish of the committee for today? The chair recognizes the Member for Yellowknife Frame Lake.