I would like to begin by providing my ruling on the point of order raised by the Member for Deh Cho yesterday. I know we all have a great deal of important business before us, so I will try to be brief.
Rule 23 lays out a number of occasions when a Member shall be called to order. Mr. McLeod cited a number of these occasions in presenting his point of order, and I want to quote them fully. “In debate a Member will be called to order by the Speaker if the Member:
1) makes allegations against another Member, a
House officer or a witness;
2) imputes false or hidden motives to another
Member
3) uses abusive of insulting language of a nature
likely to create disorder
4) introduces any matter in debate that offends
the practices and precedent of the Assembly.”
Mr.
McLeod’s point of order is in response to
comments made by the Member for Great Slave, Mr. Abernethy, during debate in Committee of the Whole on June 10, 2008. The committee was discussing a motion to delete a number of capital projects from the Tourism and Parks activity of the Department of Industry, Tourism and Investment’s Capital Acquisition Plan. Mr. McLeod, in stating his point of order, cited the following comments by Mr. Abernethy from page 106 of unedited Hansard: “I clearly understand why the Member for Deh Cho is upset. We are knocking off $300,000 for the 60th Parallel Visitors Park.”
In reviewing these comments, I examined closely the rules cited by Mr. McLeod in his point of order, and in doing so, I considered the following questions. Did Mr. Abernethy make an allegation against Mr. McLeod? Did he input false or hidden motives to him? Were his remarks abusive or insulting?
Despite the suggestion of some Members to the contrary, I find that the answers to each of these questions is clearly no. Mr. Abernethy made no allegations against Mr.
McLeod nor were his
remarks abusive or insulting. Although his reference to the Member for Deh Cho’s feelings may have been incorrect or unsubstantiated, I cannot see where they imputed a false or a hidden motive to him.
The remaining question, then, is whether the Member offended the practices and precedents of the Assembly by suggesting how Mr. McLeod and other Members felt about a motion when these Members had not spoken to the motion. Mr. McLeod, in stating his point of order, did not reference precisely which practice or precedent he felt had been offended. He also made reference to his rights and privileges as a Member, which are more appropriately addressed by way of a point of privilege. This has made it difficult for me to rely on past rulings or specific parliamentary authorities as a guide.
It is my view that although it is certainly curious and unusual for a Member to speculate on the views of other Members who have not yet expressed these or any other views in the House, it is not necessarily unparliamentary to have done so. After all, the option was open to each of the Members singled out to stand in the House and correct the record if they disagreed with Mr.
Abernethy’s
speculation.
The comments of the Member for Weledeh were also helpful in adding some perspective. Mr.
Bromley observed, “Taken in context and
perhaps with 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.” This view was supported by a number of other Members in
debate. The importance of context is supported by Marleau and Montpetit who, at page 526 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, note that “the codification of unparliamentary language has proven impractical as it is the context in which words or phrases are used that the Chair must consider when deciding whether or not [the remarks] should be withdrawn."
Mr. Abernethy, in speaking a second time to the point of order, stated convincingly that he had no ill intent in making the remarks and did not intend them to question the integrity or credibility of the Member for Deh Cho or any other Member. I found his remarks to be sincere, and I accept them at face value. I hope that other Members will come to the same conclusion. I find there is no point of order.
I would like to thank all Members who offered their views on the point of order. I particularly appreciate the respectful and balanced tone that was, for the most part, used. Thank you, Members.
Orders of the day. Item 2, Ministers’ statements. The lead Minister for the Reducing the Cost of Living Strategic Initiative Committee, Ms. Sandy Lee.