Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to speak on the point of order, and in favour of the point of order, on two points. One is the notion that a Member in this House can read an opinion of another by looking at them, which is exactly what happened with respect to Mr.
Abernethy’s
statement yesterday.
I am aware that we need to have a good debate, passionate debate, heated debate, and things are said sometimes that we may not say in a regular situation. That is the reason we have the rules. One of the strongest rules we have is that we’re not allowed to impute motive to another Member, even when the words are spoken. You’re not allowed to impute motive into something that was verbally stated.
What we are dealing with here, on the face of it, is a Member imputing motives about happiness or unhappiness or whatever on the basis of something that was not spoken. If we are going to be judged and have our motive imputed on the basis of how we look, I think that would pose serious trouble for any future debates in this House. I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to consider that fact closely.
The second thing is that there is a larger issue about an obvious thing that’s being referred to, which is that Cabinet as a whole somehow are making decisions that favour a Cabinet Minister’s riding and that they are being upset because it’s being deleted. That is a serious accusation that we cannot…. If we accept that these are acceptable words to be spoken and, in the heat of debate on a budget, that any Member could impute that a Cabinet Minister specifically — even when he didn’t
even say anything — is upset or happy because of something happening to his riding, that is a serious crossing of the line and breach of the line of debate that I don’t think we should condone. That really gets in the way of the integrity of consensus government and the level of civility and the respect we need to have in the Legislature to have a healthy debate and for the integrity of the consensus government that we work under.
I am really troubled, Mr. Speaker — and I will be waiting for your ruling — that so many Members are saying, “That is obvious.” The point of order we need to respect here is that that is not obvious, that is not correct. If that is being imputed from something that was not even said, that has to be rejected. I look forward to your ruling.