Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Whether by the definition that I read or the definition that the Member read, I believe to say that someone is doing that in this House is in violation of Section 23(j). Mr. Speaker, I ask you to rely on a ruling in the House on February 21, 2003, pages 231 to 260, in which a former Member for Monfwi, which then at the time was North Slave which is now Monfwi, accused former Premier Joe Handley of travelling on a separate road from the truth. He didn’t say that the Premier lied. He just said that he was travelling separate from the truth and that was found to be in breach of this rule.

Mr. Speaker, it is a very serious allegation for any Member in this House to allege that another Member is either misleading the House or misrepresenting the facts or lying. That’s really important because Members have to be able to rely on the information that the Ministers give and that we can’t have Ministers or Members giving deliberate falsehoods. The Member, by reading the Webster definition that he just read, he’s reconfirming the notion that he is saying that I am

actually misrepresenting or lying and double speaking. Mr. Speaker, if only because he doesn’t agree, that doesn’t mean that somebody else is misrepresenting. That only because he doesn’t agree with one interpretation, it doesn’t mean that what that person is saying is ambiguous.

At no time in answering my questions yesterday did I ever say anything that is not true. My point about the supplementary health for the lower income people, I focused on the fact that the program would expand to dental and eye care. That is a statement of the fact and to say that I...