Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’ve pulled out my book that I treasure very closely. Although I’ll be speaking both for and against the point of order, but to make reference, I think the point of order makes sense, by all means, and I give credit to Minister Jackson who has brought it to the attention of the Assembly. Unfortunately, the rules call upon us to call a point of order at the earliest convenience. Therefore, it probably should have been called right after the prayer.

The only thing I will add is, I agree with the comments added by the Premier that it probably should have been done differently, but that said, I think timely innocent procedure trumps this in this particular case. By the same token, I didn’t take the word that was caused to offence, the name of the employee was, from my perception and perspective, sitting here listening to Mr. Bromley’s comments earlier. I did not treat it as a grievous strike in any manner. It was used in the context as he’s described with good intent. I didn’t feel that there was any other intent to strike against anyone.

With that said, Mr. Speaker, in summary, I agree with the point that the opposition has raised but not in the timeliness, which I think should be ruled out. Thank you.