Thank you, Mr. Arlooktoo. Ministers' statements. I would like to do my ruling today on the point of order raised by Mr. Dent. I want to provide the House with my ruling on that point of order. The point of order raised by Mr. Dent is contained on page 77 of the edited Hansard. Mr. Dent's point of order was based on a comment made by the Member for Yellowknife South, Mr. Henry in his Member's Statement also made on November 29th, 1996, and contained on page 58 of the edited Hansard. Mr. Dent's point of order was that Mr. Henry, in his comments, had indicated that he had mislead the public by alleging that the government had taken a particular position on a Draft Constitutional Package for the western Northwest Territories. Mr. Dent also contended, in his point of order, that Mr. Henry had labelled the government irresponsible. It was on these two points that I am basing my ruling.

It was not until the House resumed sitting yesterday, that I provided the opportunity to Mr. Henry to respond to the point of order. Mr. Henry in his comments, which are contained on Page 209 of the unedited Hansard, indicated that his comments were not intended to say the government had endorsed the proposed package. The Member also indicated, in speaking to his point of order, that and I quote, "I did not say the government was irresponsible but instead that, if the government endorsed the current constitutional proposal, that action would be irresponsible."

I reviewed carefully Mr. Dent's interpretation of Mr. Henry's comments, and likewise Mr. Henry's comments and find, as has been the case in other rulings that have been made, that the House, on occasion, may accept two contradictory interpretations of comments made. I refer to Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, 6th edition, Citation 494, and I quote:

"It has been formally ruled by Speakers that statements by Members respecting themselves, and particularly within their own knowledge, must be accepted. It is not unparliamentary temperately to criticize statements made by Members as being contrary to the facts but no imputation of intentional falsehood is permissible. On rare occasions, this may result in the House having to accept two contradictory accounts of the same incident."

Based on my review of the comments made by both Members, I do not find that there is a point of order and I am sure both Members accept and respect each other's interpretation and views on this matter.