Good afternoon, colleagues. Welcome back to the Chamber. I will now provide my ruling on the point of privilege raised by the Member for Hay River South on Monday, June 2, 2008.

The role of the Speaker when a point of privilege is raised is twofold. First, the Speaker must determine whether the point of privilege was raised at the earliest possible opportunity. I find that Mrs. Groenewegen did raise her point of privilege at the earliest possible opportunity.

Secondly, the Speaker must determine whether a prima facie breach of privilege took place.

In stating her point of privilege, the Member for Hay River South referenced the following comments made by the Member for Thebacha on May 30, 2008, during debate on a motion to delete a capital project from his constituency from the Main Estimates.

“And as we keep open minds to look at all the options, one of the options that hadn’t been considered is we’re talking about repatriating a bunch of adults into a supportive living structure that has yet to be built. Has that been considered as a possibility for Arctic Tern? I don’t know. But clearly it’s a circumstance that strikes me as interesting and somewhat ironic.”

Mrs. Groenewegen went on to say, and I quote from the unedited Hansard from June 2:

“I believe the Member for Thebacha’s comments were made to intimidate me as I attempted to carry out my duty...as a Member to vote the way I wished on this potentially contentious motion.”

In responding to the point of privilege, the Member for Thebacha stated, and again I quote from the unedited Hansard:

“My one comment on that issue was that there’s an option that hasn’t been considered that I think is fully valid, and in fact, other Members, when it was discussed with them, agreed that it should be worth at least looking at.

“In the course of debate...I raised that comment and I raised that option. It was done within the context of broad debate. It was no threat.”

We are thus left with two competing interpretations of the spirit and intent of the Member for Thebacha’s comments. In the absence of further evidence I find it difficult to come to any clear and certain conclusion as to what exactly he was getting at.

Breaches of privilege are serious and should only be found to exist in rare circumstances. Intimidation and instruction of a Member is one of the most serious breaches of parliamentary privilege. When such actions are found to have occurred with absolute certainty, they should be and have been met with serious consequences in this House.

While the Member for Hay River South was justified to raise the matter, I am unable to find a prima facie breach of privilege with the evidence before me.

Members, the events in question occurred in Committee of the Whole. In reviewing the transcripts in the context of the point of privilege, I was surprised and concerned by the tone and context of the debate that day. The debate was frequently unrelated to the matter at hand, and in some circumstances it reflected upon previous votes of the House. False or hidden motives were attributed to some Members, and comments were made that were likely to and, in my view, intended to create disorder in this Chamber.

The debate before you is important and can be taxing. I want to urge each of you to exercise restraint and self-control when debating issues in this House. A failure to do so would be inconsistent with the traditions of consensus government and could usher in a new era of conflict and confrontation in the Legislative Assembly. The people we serve expect better from us as elected leaders. Thank you, Members.

Orders of the Day. Item 2, Ministers’ statements. The honourable Minister responsible for Transportation, Mr. Yakeleya.