Before we begin, colleagues, yesterday in the House a number of points of order were raised during oral questions. The first point of order, raised by Mrs. Groenewegen, alleged that the Premier, in response to questions about the Deh Cho Bridge, misled the House. I quote from page 40 of unedited Hansard: “Mr. Speaker, the Premier is not telling the entire story, and he is misleading the House.”

This is not a point of order. In fact, parliamentary rules and practices are clear that an accusation of this sort may only be made by way of substantive motion, not by way of point of order.

In dealing with the point of order, Mr. Ramsay supported Mrs.

Groenewegen by saying, and I

quote again from page 41 of unedited Hansard: “When the Premier can stand in this House and say that the banks are solely responsible for that $160

million, it is not true. It is not true,

Mr. Speaker.” This intervention by Mr. Ramsay led to a second point of order by the Premier under Rule 23(j), which prohibits Members from charging one another with uttering a deliberate falsehood.

There’s nothing necessarily wrong with stating in the House that certain information is not accurate. In certain circumstances, it is even acceptable to suggest that certain information is misleading. It is always the case in dealing with allegations of unparliamentary language that the content, tone and intention of the Member speaking must be taken into consideration. The degree of provocation and whether the remarks cause disorder in the House are also relevant.

In reviewing the unedited Hansard, it is clear that Mrs. Groenewegen, in rising to her point of order, and Mr. Ramsay in supporting it, went further than to suggest that the Premier’s answers were misleading or inaccurate. The Members in questions were clearly suggesting that the Premier intended to provide false and misleading information to the House.

Accusations such as this are serious and are not to be made lightly. As Speaker, I encourage lively but respectful debate in this House. The issues that we deal with are important issues. They are issues that the people we represent take seriously and want to see us take seriously.

I find that Mr. Roland has a point of order. While it is unclear whether the point of order was raised solely in response to Mr. Ramsay’s allegations or was intended to cover Mrs. Groenewegen’s earlier comments as well, I find that both crossed a well-established and understood convention of respectful parliamentary debate.

I will first ask Mrs. Groenewegen to withdraw her remarks and apologize to the House.