Good afternoon, Members. Before we begin the regular orders of the day, I would like to provide my ruling on the Point of Order raised by the Member for Range Lake, Ms. Lee, during question period yesterday, June 10, 2003. Ms. Lee rose on a Point of Order under Rule 23(h),(i) and (j) with respect to answers given by the Minister of Health and Social Services, the Honourable Michael Miltenberger, to her earlier questions. Stating her Point of Order, Ms. Lee said, and I quote from page 2087 of the unedited Hansard: "Minister Miltenberger in answering my questions stated that I was sending out misleading information or falsehood or words to that effect, that I was unduly scaring the public out there when I was making a statement about what my constituent had said and she was interviewed in the paper."
Ms. Lee went on to reference a response Mr. Miltenberger made to a question from Mr. Bell. I, again, quote from page 2087 of the unedited Hansard: "he said there was a concern raised by the general practitioners about the specialist locum and that he has just dealt with that issue at noon today. So the Minister just admitted that there was a concern expressed."
Specifically, as clearly as the chair was able to ascertain from a review of the unedited Hansard, Ms. Lee contended that Minister Miltenberger had contravened Rule 23(j), which states that a Member shall be called to order if the Member charges another Member with uttering a deliberate falsehood. As I indicated, the chair has carefully and thoroughly reviewed the unedited Hansard and to put this matter into some context, I will refer to a number of quotes.
On page 2073 of the unedited Hansard in responding to Ms. Lee's question about the locum contingency for obstetrics and gynaecology, Mr. Miltenberger stated: "Every locum we hire who is qualified to practice in the Northwest Territories is registered as a medical doctor. There has been misinformation, deliberate or otherwise unfortunately it would appear, that leads people to believe that that is not the case. We've also had the unfortunate occurrence last week during Seniors' Week to have a locum's reputation and capability questioned because of his age."
On page 2074, Mr. Miltenberger went on to state: "I would just hope that people would put out the best facts they have, and not cause alarm and not make statements questioning the locums when we know in this House that we don't hire anybody but qualified doctors. We can't. Our rules are very clear. We should not be causing needless apprehension among patients and people, women and pregnant women."
On page 2074 and 2075, Ms. Lee asked the following supplementary question: "My question to the Minister is that we know, and I know, that he's been getting e-mail and correspondence that I have, that says that the family doctors in Yellowknife and the parents who are expecting babies have no faith in the locum contingent. I'd like to know what he has done, since this has been revealed, to accommodate their lack of faith in the locum contingent."
Mr. Miltenberger's response is found on page 2075 of the unedited Hansard, and I quote: "...first let me be very clear. I do not know these people Ms. Lee refers to. My comments were directed specifically at the Members here who have been making comments, who have been making these comments in this forum, in this House." Mr. Miltenberger furthered stated, again I quote from page 2075 of the unedited Hansard: "...there are a lot of forces at play here, and to come into this House and call into question the credibility of all the locums is, I think, unfortunate."
Very clearly this is a highly charged issue and it may be safe to say that at the very least, the facts may be in dispute. This is not an unusual occurrence in our line of work. In fact, it happens regularly because the facts of any matter are often in dispute, the parliamentary authorities recognize this and make allowances for it. I refer respectfully to Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, 6th Edition, Citation 494 on page 151: "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."
It is evident to the chair, from the comments made by both Ms. Lee and Mr. Miltenberger, that there is a divergence of opinion and that the facts of the matter are in dispute. It is not for the chair to ascertain who is right or which interpretation is correct. Therefore, the chair will confine itself to a determination of whether any of the comments made constitute a breach of any of our rules, specifically Rule 23(j.)
In carefully reviewing unedited Hansard, I note that while Mr. Miltenberger does make a number of references to the dissemination of information contrary to the information in his possession, he does not go so far as to name any particular Member until he states that his comments: "Were directed specifically at the Members here who have been making comments, who have been making these comments in this forum, in this House," as taken from page 2075 of the unedited Hansard. This point causes the chair some concern in that while Mr. Miltenberger did not refer to a particular question, his comments did call into question whether a Member or Members were uttering falsehoods. When this is coupled with the fact that Mr. Miltenberger earlier, on page 2073 of the unedited Hansard stated, and I quote: "There has been misinformation, deliberate or otherwise, unfortunately, it would appear, that leads people to believe that this is not the case."
Taken together, these comments infer that there has been a deliberate attempt to disseminate misleading or inaccurate information by a Member or Members of the House and, therefore, I find that Ms. Lee does have a Point of Order under Rule 23(j.)
---Applause
Order, please. I am not finished. I want to take this opportunity to remind all Members, and to caution you, that while the House is prepared to accept more than one version of events or issues, or more than one set of facts as Members believe them to be, the House is not prepared to accept charges from Members that any misinformation is brought to the Chamber deliberately. I urge all Members to choose your words carefully and wisely, especially in dealing with emotionally-charged issues.
I am also going to take this opportunity to make a rather important point about your duty and responsibility to protect persons who are not Members of this House by refraining from making comments that could cause injury to persons outside the House.
I would like to quote a short passage from page 524 of Marleau and Montpetit's "House of Commons Procedure and Practice."
"The House has ruled that Members have a responsibility to protect the innocent, not only from outright slander, but from any slur directly or indirectly implied and has stressed that Members should avoid as much as possible mentioning by name people from outside the House who are unable to reply and defend themselves against innuendo."
The chair is aware that a member of the public was not named directly. However, it is also very clear that we are a small constituency and the medical community is a smaller one still. Naming a particular individual is not necessary for serious damage to result. I want to strongly advise all Members to refrain from further reference of this nature and encourage you to be extremely vigilant in this regard.
Item 2, Ministers' statements. The honourable Member for the Sahtu, Mr. Kakfwi.