Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I once again rise on a point of order under 23(k) and (l).
Mr. Speaker, yesterday in this House you ruled on a point of order that I raised in this House last week, in which you found that I did have a point of order and Mr. Hawkins was asked to withdraw his comments.
It has come to my attention and I am rising on the first available opportunity and I will table this document at the appropriate time today. It has come to my attention that a Facebook electronic missive was sent out of this House literally minutes after your ruling, that says, “Well, the NWT Speaker ruled against me and he felt my words were too harsh for the Minister of Health.
“First off, I am happy to withdraw them fully. But it should be said it is difficult, if not enormously challenging not to be passionate about the job we are doing here. And when the Minister cannot do his job, I question why they are left there at the cost of all Northerners.
“One serious challenge for me is, should it not be my job to call the Minister out when he won’t or cannot do his job.”
Those are direct references, once again, that you ruled and required a withdrawal. He closes by saying, “And at the same time, isn’t it in many ways the greater crime to ignore that fact.” which I would only take as a reference to the ruling.
Mr. Speaker, the point of order is I see this missive as no different than a note, where in the past notes have been written in the House and it becomes public and gets tabled. This one, we have on one hand Mr. Hawkins speaking in this House saying he withdraws his comments and apologizes, and then in this House he sends out a Facebook that
basically repudiates that and, in fact, challenges the findings of the ruling.
I believe the point of order is still relevant because when you look at these two contradictory messages in the same period of time in this House, one of them is accurate and one of them is not. I think this type of technology, this type of communication now is going to be a challenge for us. In this case, I believe Mr. Hawkins still has to clarify whether, in fact, he does withdraw his comments, given his mixed messages here that he’s sending, one saying yes, one saying no and, not only that, but challenging the ruling of the Chair. Thank you.