Good afternoon, colleagues. Welcome back to the House. Orders of the day. The honourable Member for Deh Cho, Mr. McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise on a point of order under Rules 23 (h), (i), (k) and (m). I’ve waited until today to raise this point of order, because I wanted to review the unedited Hansard.

Mr.

Speaker, yesterday during debate on

Committee Motion 45-16(2), Mr. Abernethy said, and I quote from page 106 of unedited Hansard for Tuesday, June 10, 2008: “I clearly understand why the Member for Deh Cho is upset. We are knocking off $300,000 for the 60th parallel visitors’ park.”

Mr. Abernethy’s comments alleged that I was upset. I’m not sure how this was determined, since I did not speak to the motion. His comments also impute that I was defending government projects in my own constituency, which I did not.

Mr. Speaker, I consider Mr. Abernethy’s remarks to be disrespectful to me, my constituents and to the concept of consensus government. These comments and remarks do little more than create disorder in the House. It is my exclusive right and privilege to state my opinions and beliefs in this Assembly, and I am very concerned that Mr. Abernethy may have infringed on this right by suggesting that I put my position on the motion under debate.

In this regard I believe Mr. Abernethy’s comments offended the practices and precedents of this Assembly.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Mr. McLeod has risen on a point of order. I am going to allow some debate on the point of order. To the point of

order, the honourable Member for Sahtu, Mr. Yakeleya.

Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise on a point of order under Rule 23(h)….

We have a point of order on the floor. I will deal with that point of order. If you want to speak to the point of order, you may. To the point of order, the honourable Member for Great Slave, Mr. Abernethy.

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. In

response to the point of order, yesterday when the debate was going on we were all talking about the projects that were going on. There was a lot of reference to the different projects that were out there and a lot of reference to the projects that were in question — the ones that were being eliminated as a result of the $1.5 million cut. Clearly, the Deh Cho project was one of them. I felt, you know, that I’d have been upset if a project was getting eliminated from my riding. It’s a fact. We know that exists. We know there would have been $300,000 spent in the Minister’s riding, so I made reference to it. It’s a fact; it exists. I didn’t think that I was, as the Member said yesterday, impugning his motives. I wasn’t suggesting in any way, shape or form that the Minister had any motive in this thing, simply that having a project eliminated from his riding may be upsetting.

That’s it for now. I’ll save the rest for the next two.

Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. To the point of order, the honourable Member for Yellowknife Centre, Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was here in the Chamber when the words were said. I’m going to speak to it in this regard. First, I want to stress — and I think it’s important to highlight — that Mr. McLeod’s riding and how he makes his opinions are his responsibility and his responsibility alone. Therefore, it should not be assumed as to how Members, whether they be Cabinet or Regular Members, assume that opinion.

Mr. Speaker, it’s my opinion that the Member for Great Slave was not shooting with ill intent,

although his words may have suggested there could have been an assumption there. I think the spirit and the intent was strictly based on the fact that something was being deleted, and of course, the Member may feel that is a concern.

My observation of this whole issue at large is that it was an assumption, but I don’t think it was meant in any regard of any negative perspective. I don’t think there’s a point of order here, but I’d certainly like to offer the opportunity for us to retract those words and maybe move forward. I don’t think this is a necessary process. Sometimes things get frustrated and words get put into people’s mouths, as well as intents.

Closing this point out, Mr. Speaker, the issue I think that really arose here is the fact that there was an assumption made. I don’t think the spirit and the intent was mean or with malice or any other type in any way.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. To the point of order, the honourable Member for Hay River South, Mrs. Groenewegen.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was in the Chamber. I heard the comments that were made by Mr.

Abernethy. I concur that

Mr.

McLeod had not spoken to the motion. I

perceived Mr. Abernethy’s comments to be merely stating the obvious: that there was a motion before us to delete certain capital projects from ridings that were Ministers’ ridings. That’s what my interpretation was when I heard the words — that Mr. Abernethy was in fact stating the obvious.

As to whether Mr. McLeod was upset by that, I think it would be safe to assume that any Member around this Chamber would not be happy to have a motion come forward to delete something from their riding. I don’t think it’s an outrageous assumption on Mr. Abernethy’s part. Again, I state that to me it sounded like he was stating the obvious about some of the components of that $1.5 million that were proposed to be deleted.

Mr. Speaker, when you are considering your ruling, which will be yours and yours alone…. I think that we have embarked on a new thing in this Chamber of Members, actually, from the other side defending their ridings, defending capital projects in their ridings, and I think that introduces a new kind of tone to the debate on motions like this. I would appreciate it if that was something you took into consideration as well.

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. To the point of order, the honourable Member for Weledeh, Mr. Bromley.

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. I

appreciate this opportunity to comment here. I think

it’s very important. Although I can understand the point of order that’s been raised here, I think it’s very important in considering it to take into consideration the context in which the comments were made, and I’d like to just make a comment on that.

My perception of the Member’s statement is that it was meant to be vicarious and consoling. If you look at the paragraph preceding the remark, for example, the statement was made that we will be still spending $2.3 million — in other words, this is not a total cut here — and it was followed by the suggestion that this may be a temporary cut, that we can reinstate these at a later date, which may not be very much later.

I just wanted to make the comment that, taken in context and perhaps considering a lack of experience in what’s totally appropriate protocol, the Member’s statements were really meant to be more vicarious and consoling than accusatory.

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. To the point of order, the honourable Member for Thebacha, Mr. Miltenberger.

Thank you,

Mr. Speaker. I was going to rise on my own point of order, but I will instead speak to this particular point of order put forward by my colleague.

Personally, I want to state that the Member did not speak to defend; he did not speak to argue the case. He was silent, as was my colleague Mr. Yakeleya. There were three of us named, and things were attributed to us.

Within the context of the debate and the debate that’s been going on in this House, in my opinion, there was an imputation, first, that Ministers have been favouring themselves in terms of how projects are being distributed, and then now we’re doubly upset because the decision has been made to delete some of them. I don’t think that’s a fair characterization. I think it’s contrary to the rules.

I agree with my colleague. He did not say a word, nor did Mr. Yakeleya, and the Member opposite took it upon himself to define what they were feeling and attribute motive to them that was in no way verbalized in this House. I think it’s beyond what is acceptable in terms of the rules of debate before this House.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. To the point of order, the honourable Member for Nahendeh, Mr. Menicoche.

Thank you very much,

Mr. Speaker. I, too, was in the House when the exchange occurred. As well, to this point of order, out of interest I read the unedited Hansard. The way it reads to me is that there was no intent here

other than to state the obvious fact, which a Member did.

You have to remember that there was very spirited discussion occurring at that moment as well. We’re right in the heat of debating a very, very important motion. It was really important to the Cabinet side, and they were defending it. Many of their Members did speak. The two who were mentioned by Mr. Abernethy didn’t speak, but there were others who spoke. There was lots of spirited engagement in the debate. Mr. Abernethy, I believe, just pointed out a few facts from the motion that was being debated in front of us. Mashi cho.

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. To the point of order, the honourable Member for Sahtu, Mr. Yakeleya.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, too, rise in defence of the point of order from my honourable colleague. We have — I along with Mr. Miltenberger, the MLA for Thebacha — pointed out, in terms of this debate here, in terms of Mr. Abernethy’s comments to me, that I never spoke on the motion in the Hansard. I was quite concerned in terms of Mr. Abernethy having the understanding about why I was upset. There are reasons I could be looking upset over here. I’m not too sure how he came to that conclusion. There are many things going on in our lives and many things happening in this Assembly that would cause me to make some judgments. That is quite worrisome to me as to how I choose to be portrayed on this side in terms of our discussions in this House. It really does cause me some concerns in terms of the style of government we have here in terms of the issues Mr. McLeod talked about. To say that I’m upset, too, because we knocked $100,000 off the CANOL Trail really does concern me a lot in terms of this point of order and in terms of how we are to receive them.

I look forward to your ruling in terms of how we conduct ourselves with the style of government we have in the House.

Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. To the point of order, the honourable Member for Kam Lake, Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to just state for the record today that I, too, heard the comments of my colleague Mr.

Abernethy

yesterday. It was a heated debate. Cabinet Ministers, specifically the Premier, were visibly upset over the motion to delete the $1.5 million. You could see it on their faces. Actually, some of them were turning quite a shade of red.

I believe that my colleague Mr. Abernethy was pointing out the obvious. Again, Cabinet waded into the debate. They started trying to defend the $1.5

million expenditure in this area that the motion spoke of. It is unfortunate my colleague named a couple of Ministers who didn’t speak to the motion, and I believe they were caught in the crossfire of a heated debate.

You know, you can connect the dots in this motion, that the $1.5 million…. My colleague was stating the obvious. There wasn’t 10 cents of that $1.5 million expenditure being spent in anyone’s riding on this side of the House, Mr. Speaker. He was only stating the obvious. Mahsi.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. To the point of order, the honourable Member for Inuvik Boot Lake, Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will listen to this and wait for your ruling. But even comments and some of the discussion here continue to talk about obvious facts.

Mr. Speaker, the motion was referring to…. If we look at the document that was being referred to on the capital infrastructure piece, or acquisition plan of the Government of the Northwest Territories for 2008–2009, under ITI, page 9-7, the specific area refers to Parks Renewal — Territorial.

Mr. Speaker, the fact that the Member raised an issue and spoke on behalf…. There are no obvious facts. When you look at Hansard, there is no record in Hansard of both the Member for Sahtu and the Member for Deh Cho speaking to this.

Now, we’ve heard some Members say there was obviously a concern or an upset view from some of us over here, and I would have to accept that as Premier and Finance Minister. The budget was being cut. There’s obviously going to be some reaction to that from me. But the fact is that in this House we all reserve the right to speak for ourselves and our constituencies. None of the Members on the other side would take very lightly the fact if I were to stand up and start speaking on behalf of the Member for Mackenzie Delta, or Nunakput or Kam Lake, and say, “They are doing this, or they're feeling this,” when they’ve never expressed that in this Assembly.

Now, in heated debate things can happen; agreed. But I think that is why, more importantly, we need clear guidelines as to what is acceptable and not acceptable. If Members enter into the fray, then I guess in this circle we would call it fair game. But for those who have not expressed an opinion on the particular debate, I don’t think it would be appropriate for them to put on record — on permanent record — what was being said, because a lot of people in the Northwest Territories only have Hansard to look at.

So, Members, when you raise an obvious fact, we know the fact because we’ve done our work in this Assembly. But for the people in the Northwest Territories, when they hear the debate — if they catch a bit of it or they just catch Hansard — they’re not getting all those pieces. In fact, when they go back and they link up to this document, they would see us talking about territorial assets and facilities.

So I don't think it’s appropriate for any Member of this House, whether it be a Minister or a Regular Member, to try to state what another Member is feeling when they haven’t been part of the debate on any motion at that point.

I look forward to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, in that area. But we definitely need clear guidelines as to how we proceed from this point, and a better understanding. It is in time of heated debate that things can go sideways on us, as they would say.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. To the point of order, the honourable Member for Range Lake, Ms. Lee.