Thank you, Mr. Allen. Please be seated. Good afternoon, colleagues. Before we begin today's agenda, I wish to provide my ruling on the point of order raised on March 12, 2002 by the honourable Member for Weledeh, Mr. Handley.
Speaker's Ruling
Prior to addressing this specific point of order I would like to make some comment on the purpose of a point of order, since we have had a number of those points of order in the last session and again in this session. A point of order is a question raised by a Member who believes that the rules or customary procedures of the House have been incorrectly applied or overlooked during the proceedings. Members may rise on points of order to bring to the attention of the Chair any breach of the relevance or repetition of the rules, unparliamentary remarks or any of our rules. Members are able to do so at virtually any time in the proceedings, provided the point of order is raised and concisely argued as soon as the irregularity occurs or as soon as practicable thereafter.
As a point of order concerns the interpretation of the rules, it is the responsibility of the Speaker, or Chair in committee of the whole, to determine its merits and to resolve the issue. Although Members frequently rise claiming a point of order, genuine points of order rarely occur. Indeed, points of order are often used by Members in an attempt to gain the floor to participate in debate, and in such cases, the Speaker will not allow the Member intervening to continue. This is the reason that when a Member is recognized on a point of order, you should only state which rule or practice you consider has been breached.
Our rules provide for brief debate on the point of order at the Speaker or Chair's discretion. I wish to advise that the Chairs have a responsibility to ensure impartiality and fairness when considering a point of order and will hear from Members if it is not clear whether a breach has occurred. When a point of order is raised, the Speaker attempts to rule on the matter immediately. However, if necessary, the matter may be taken under advisement and the Chair will come back to the House later with a formal ruling. As has been the case, there are occasions that when hearing the point of order, I do not need to reserve on my decision but can rule at the time of the occurrence. When this happens, I am of the view that this assists the House in dealing with its deliberations without being hampered by debate on points of order and waiting for a ruling. Once the Speaker's decision is rendered, the matter is no longer open to debate or discussion and the ruling cannot be appealed to the House.
I would now like to provide my ruling on the point of order raised by the honourable Member for Weledeh, Mr. Handley, with respect to remarks made by the honourable Member for Range Lake, Ms. Lee, on March 11, 2002. The statements in question are, referring to unedited Hansard, page 1229:
The point that I was making is that -- and I have stated in there that I am not saying that the Minister did any wrong-doing or anything like that -- but it is the Minister who put this into the supplementary appropriation, and the headline on Friday said $500,000 for the pay out. That came from a public document, which is Supp 3.
If it is true, as he has been saying, that he knows his obligations under this contract and that he was not to do anything that would reveal it, for him to have put into a supplementary appropriation is a ground for questioning his conduct.
In raising the point of order, the honourable Member referred to Rules 23(h) and 23(i), which state:
23 In debate, a Member will be called to order by the Speaker if the Member:
(h) makes allegations against another Member, a House officer or a witness;
(i) imputes false or hidden motives to another Member.
The Member for Weledeh, in making his point of order, stated that the information put forward by the Member for Range Lake was both factually incorrect, in that the Supp 3 was not for $500,000 but for $695,000 or so, and that he had a statutory obligation as Minister of Finance to put into the supplementary appropriations anything that is going to require additional spending. That appropriation is put in there because the Department of the Executive does not have the money to handle it.
Mr. Handley also stated in speaking to the point of order, and I quote from page 1239 of unedited Hansard, "She (Ms. Lee) is clearly imputing motives to me and second, is questioning my integrity."
I find that the statement of the Member for Range Lake does question the integrity and motives of Mr. Handley, and further suggests that in bringing forward the Supplementary Appropriation No. 3, he was doing so in a manner which breached confidential agreements.
I reviewed the comments of the honourable Member for Range Lake, Ms. Lee, in speaking to the point of order and found she did not offer any comment that would convince me to rule otherwise.
Therefore I rule that the honourable Member for Weledeh has a point of order; the statements made by the Member for Range Lake, Ms. Lee, being a contravention of Rules 23(h) and (i) of the Rules of the Legislative Assembly. Such questioning of integrity is a serious matter with respect to any Member of this House, but it is particularly serious to level such allegations at the Minister of Finance, who has specific and statutory duties to this House. I therefore ask the Member for Range Lake whether she is prepared to retract the offending statements. Ms. Lee.