During Members’ statements, the honourable Member for Inuvik Boot Lake, Mr. Roland, rose on a point of order claiming that the Member for Kam Lake, Mr. Ramsay, in his Member’s statement earlier that day had, and I quote from page 411 of unedited Hansard: “made allegations against me saying I circumvented the rules. Under 23(h) of our rules, I believe that is an infraction.”

In reviewing Mr. Ramsay’s statement as contained in the unedited Hansard, I note that the Member for Kam Lake made the following assertions, and I quote from page 407: “The Minister of Finance is taking a very literal interpretation of the Financial Administration Act and the relevant Financial Administration Manual directives in relation to the government’s duty to consult with the affected committee and the MLAs. I strongly believe, Madam Speaker, that while the Minister and his officials may have upheld the letter of the law by consulting with Members in committee, through the introduction of a supplementary appropriation, they have nonetheless violated the spirit or intent of their requirement to consult in a timely manner.”

The Member for Kam Lake closed his statement with the following remark, and I quote from page 408 of the unedited Hansard: “I object to this government using supplementary appropriations to circumvent the review and oversight function that the committees provide…”

In allowing debate on the point, the Chair heard from both Mr. Ramsay and Mr. Roland. In essence, Mr. Ramsay stood by his comments, and I quote from page 411 of the unedited Hansard: “In saying “circumvent,” in my opinion the government did circumvent the rules that were in place in FAM directive 302. I stand by my comments that they did circumvent those rules.”

The honourable Member for Boot Lake, Mr. Roland, in speaking to the Point of Order said, and I again quote from unedited Hansard, page 412: “…again he has clearly stated not just now about the Finance Minister but Cabinet has circumvented the rules.”

Colleagues, what is now before the Chair is not whether the rules respecting the Financial Administration Manual and requirements to consult with Members were circumvented, but whether or not in charging that the Minister and the government had done so, the Member for Kam Lake has contravened the rules and practices of this House.

Firstly, I would like to note that in reviewing the foregoing passages from unedited Hansard, I find that Mr. Ramsay initially alleged that the government circumvented the committee’s review and oversight function and nothing more specific than that. Additionally, the brief debate the Chair allowed on the point served to cloud the issue rather than clarify it in that a specific reference to Financial Administration Manual directive 302 was made by the honourable Member for Kam Lake in further alleging that further rules were circumvented.

However, your Chair’s concern is whether the rules and practices of the House were infringed upon, and I will enlist services of our parliamentary authorities to assist in this determination. Firstly, it might seem to the casual observer that on the service and within a strict interpretation of our Rule 23(h) that no Member shall make allegations against another, but Mr. Ramsay’s comments might constitute an allegation in contravention to the rule. However, as your Chair attempts to balance daily the right of Members to open an unfettered debate and exchanges that promote good government and accountability, strict interpretations are often recognized as impractical.

Beauchesne’s Parliamentary Rules and Forms, Sixth Edition, tells us in citation 486 on page 143 that: “It is impossible to lay down any specific rules in regard to injurious reflections uttered in debate against particular Members or to declare beforehand what expressions are or are not contrary to order. Much depends on the tone, manner and intention of the person to whom the words are addressed or whether the words are meant to be applied to public conduct or private character and sometimes upon the degree of provocation which the Member speaking had received from the person alluded to. All these considerations must be attended to at the moment as they are infinitely various and cannot possibly be foreseen in such a manner that precise rules can be adopted with respect to them.”

Using this passage as a guideline, the Chair finds it difficult to conclude that Mr. Ramsay’s original comments constitute a contravention of our rules. While the Member for Kam Lake and the Member for Inuvik Boot Lake clearly disagree, your Chair can find nothing offensive in Mr. Ramsay’s remarks that would go beyond a criticism of government and constitute a Point of Order.

To further illustrate, I refer to Marleau and Montpetit on page 526 where the authors tell us that the Speaker takes into account a number of factors, but “most importantly whether or not the remarks created disorder in the Chamber.”

Clearly, at the time, disorder did not result from Mr. Ramsay’s comment; and for this reason and others iterated above, I must rule that there is no Point of Order. However, I will take this opportunity to remind all Members that in the House there is often a very fine line between what does or does not offend our rules and practices. I would caution you all of being mindful of your duty to treat each other with dignity and respect, especially when issues are emotionally charged and opinions differ. Knowing these two Members as well as I do, I have no doubt that they will continue to set a very positive example for all of us in this regard. Thank you, Members, for your attention.