Mr. Roland rose on a point of order with regard to proceedings in Committee of the Whole on Wednesday, October 8, 2008, and cited Rule 23(i) of the Rules of the Legislative Assembly. This rule states that a Member will be called to order by the Speaker if the Member imputes false or hidden motives to another Member. A point of order must be raised at the earliest opportunity. Mr.

Roland rose after reviewing the unedited

Hansard for October 8, 2008. I find that he raised the point of order at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Roland felt that Mrs. Groenewegen, by questioning the process of negotiated contracts and by referencing himself as a Member for Inuvik who supported the project and also as the Premier and the Chair of the Financial Management Board for the first eight months of the 16th Assembly, was

directly questioning his motives with regard to the capital project under discussion in Committee of the Whole. I will quote Mr. Roland in stating his point of order, found on page 3 of the unedited Hansard for Thursday, October 9, 2008:

“Mrs. Groenewegen…in questioning the Finance Minister, asked this question: ‘…was the MLA who approved the negotiated contract the MLA for Inuvik, the Premier and the Chair of the Financial Management Board?’…by putting that line of questioning out there, she has tried to, in fact…. I would feel that this is written now forever in the record books: [she states] imputing a motive on my behalf that I had a position to make something happen.”

After the point of order I did allow for debate and heard from both Mr.

Roland and Mrs.

Groenewegen.

When speaking to the point of order, Mr. Roland stated: “In fact, by her line of questioning she was indeed imputing a false motive to the process and my role as the Member for Inuvik Boot Lake, thereby putting into question my role as Premier and Finance Minister of the day.”

Mrs. Groenewegen, rising to speak to the point of order, offered the following rationale for her line of questioning in Committee of the Whole:

“I’m not a Cabinet Minister, so I’m not privy to the processes that would actually take place behind closed doors in the confidentiality of the Cabinet Room with respect to a Member declaring a conflict or how they’d be involved. I listened to the deputy minister outline the negotiated contract policy, and he said that would necessarily include a letter of support from community leaders, including MLAs. I then wanted to understand that process better. I did not intend to impute any motive. I still want to clearly understand how this project came about.”

Members may recall that in prior rulings I have been unable to find a definite authority to assist me in providing rulings of this nature. Previous rulings, both my own and those of previous Speakers, have relied on a careful review of the transcripts of the proceedings in question and the comments offered by Members when providing the opportunity for debate.

The comments that led to the point of order took place on the floor of the Chamber during Committee of the Whole. I relied on the unedited Hansard for October 8, 2008, to review the questions raised by Mrs. Groenewegen during the committee consideration of Tabled Document 93-16(2). I do find the following comments by Mrs. Groenewegen, found at page 62, to be helpful in providing context for her question:

“To my knowledge, this is the largest capital project ever built. Could we get some

rationalization for why it was a negotiated contract as opposed to a competitive process? Were other means of procuring this project considered, like breaking it up into smaller pieces? On a negotiated contract, when the process has been described previously as having to meet with the agreement of the MLA, the mayor and the Cabinet, was the MLA who approved the negotiated contract the MLA for Inuvik, the Premier and the Chair of the Financial Management Board?”

I also found Mrs. Groenewegen’s explanation, at page 4, unedited Hansard, from Thursday, October 9, 2008, to be of assistance. She stated: “That’s not something I knew. So I was asking questions. I was not trying to answer them or impute any motive.”

In making my ruling, I am guided by citation 494 in Beauchesne’s Parliamentary Rules and Forms, 6th edition. I quote, “…it has been normally ruled by Speakers that statements by Members respecting themselves and particularly within their own knowledge must be accepted.” I do accept Mrs. Groenewegen’s comments at face value, and therefore, colleagues, I do not find that Mr. Roland has a point of order in this instance.

Before we resume Orders of the Day, colleagues, I leave you Members with the following words from Marleau and Montpetit’s House of Commons Procedure and Practice,

at page 504:

“Nevertheless, while it is the Speaker who is charged with maintaining the dignity and decorum of the House, Members themselves must take responsibility for their behaviour and conduct their business in an appropriate fashion.”

Thank you, colleagues. Orders of the Day. Item 2, Ministers’ statements. The honourable Minister of Education, Culture and Employment, Mr. Lafferty.