Colleagues, before we go on to the next item on the order paper, I would like to read my ruling on the point of order that was raised yesterday.
Yesterday, Premier Handley, during oral questions, raised his point of order 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."
In speaking to his point of order, Mr. Handley stated that Mr. Ramsay, the Member for Kam Lake, made an allegation in his line of questioning that the Premier was in a conflict with respect to his involvement in a decision regarding access to certain lands in the city of Yellowknife to conduct geotechnical investigations.
The Premier went on to state that Mr. Ramsay was implying some false or hidden motive on his part.
I note that neither Mr. Ramsay nor any other Member rose to speak to the point of order. I am, therefore, left only with the unedited Hansard and Mr. Handley's point of order upon which to base my decision.
Marleau and Montpetit's House of Commons Procedure and Practice illustrates the difficulty Speakers often face when ruling on matters such as these, and I quote from page 526:
"In dealing with unparliamentary language, the Speaker takes into account the tone, manner and intention of the Member speaking; the person to whom the words are directed; the degree of provocation; and, most importantly, whether or not the remarks created disorder in the Chamber. Thus, language deemed unparliamentary one day may not necessarily be deemed unparliamentary the following day. The codification of unparliamentary language has proven impractical as it is the context in which words or phrases are used that the Chair must consider when deciding whether or not they should be withdrawn."
Thus, in reviewing the transcripts from the questions leading up to the point of order, the context in which they took place was of relevance. This context included both the line of questioning on which the point of order was based, and a previous line of questioning by Mr. Ramsay on that same matter. In that first line of questioning from page 3009 of the unedited Hansard, Mr. Ramsay asked the Premier, and I quote: "how he distinguishes between his responsibilities for his constituency, Premiership and his Ministerial authority at the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs."
In responding to this question, the Premier stated, again on page 3009 of unedited Hansard, that, and I quote: "with due respect, the Member is coming very close to implying that I have some other motives in mind here." Despite being advised that the Premier had taken some offence to Mr. Ramsay's line of questioning, he continued in the same vein for an additional supplementary question, and again in the second series of questions that ultimately led to the point of order.
It is a long-standing parliamentary tradition and a cornerstone of parliamentary democracy that the House recognize and respect the integrity of all its Members. Accusations or charges against another Member, whether veiled or otherwise, are not tolerated in debate and are only permissible through the introduction of a substantive motion. However, each day brings its own challenges as Members continue to approach the line, and in fact tend to kick a little dirt over it on occasion. This is one of those occasions.
As Speaker Whitford noted in a ruling on a similar point of order raised in the 14th Legislative Assembly, "Approaching the line, so to speak, is the same as crossing it in matters such as this." As Members will recall from comments in the House yesterday, the purpose of question period is to seek information from the government. The purpose of question period is not to make allegations against other Members or imply that they have carried out their duties with anything less than full integrity.
With respect to Mr. Handley's point of order, I must conclude that Mr. Handley does have a point of order. The Chair will now ask Mr. Ramsay to take this opportunity to withdraw his remarks and offer an apology to the House. Mr. Ramsay.