Before we go on, Members, to the next order on the Order Paper, I would like to now provide my ruling on the point of order raised by Mr. Handley on Thursday, February 16th, 2006.
During Members' statements, the honourable Member for Weledeh, Mr. Handley, rose on a point of order claiming that the Member for Yellowknife Centre had contravened Rule 23(i) of the rules of the Legislative Assembly.
In reviewing Mr. Hawkins' statement in unedited Hansard, I noted that the Member for Yellowknife Centre made the following assertions, and I quote from page 2465: "Mr. Speaker, the Premier has said time and time again this is just a letter and there's nothing to worry about. Well, the same thing was said about the gun registry, Mr. Speaker. It's just going to cost a couple of million dollars; there's nothing to worry about. The same thing was said about the sponsorship scandal just a couple of years ago with the Liberals; nothing to worry about, just a couple of Liberals out of control. I think, Mr. Speaker, whenever a politician utters the words "nothing to worry about" Canadians start to get nervous."
Colleagues, what is now before the Chair is whether Rule 23(i) has been compromised. It states, and I quote from our rules, "In debate a Member will be called to order by the Speaker if the Member imputes false or hidden motives to another Member."
As I have stated before in this House, the interpretation of any Member's language and the tone must be taken into the context of that specific moment in time, and the Chair must attempt to balance the actual words that were spoken with the reaction and responses of other Members of the House, recognizing that particular uniqueness of the situation.
Taken into full context, I find that it is difficult to conclude that Mr. Hawkins' comments constituted a contravention of our rules. His decision to question the honesty and integrity of the political profession is, of course, regrettable, but does not, in itself, constitute a violation of the House rules.
The Chair does not find that the spirit and intent of Mr. Hawkins' words, and the subsequent reaction of the House, were severe enough to constitute a breach of Rule 23(i). Mr. Hawkins did not intend to imply that the letter of comfort signed by the Premier was in any way dishonest, illegal or immoral. He was, in my view, attempting to make the case that the actions by governments often can and have lead to unforeseen consequences. While his choice of analogy was unfortunate and very close to the line, it does not, in my opinion, constitute unparliamentary language. Therefore, the Member for Weledeh does not have a point of order.
I would like to take this opportunity, however, to again caution Members to consider very carefully the words and expressions that are used in this House. I trust that all Members will continue to make every effort to operate with the utmost dignity and respect towards their other colleagues on the floor of this House.
Thank you, Members, for your attention.
Orders of the day. Oral questions. The honourable Member from Inuvik Twin Lakes, Mr. McLeod.