Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I’ve waited until today to raise this point or order because I wanted to review yesterday’s Hansard. On Tuesday, May 11th, during his Member’s statement, Mr. Ramsay said, and I quote from page 5 of unedited Hansard of that day, “Minister Lee has been given her marching orders by Cabinet and she is being too arrogant and too ignorant to see that by pursuing this direction she is doing untold damage to her reputation as a people’s politician.” Mr. Speaker, I submit in the accusation of being arrogant and ignorant are clearly abusive and violate Rule 23(k) that states in debate, a Member will be called to order by the Speaker if the Member uses abusive or insulting language of a nature likely to create disorder.
In the same statement, Mr. Ramsay also said, and I quote from page 5 unedited Hansard from May 11th, “It is a gross misrepresentation of the laurels of this government to be fair and equitable to all they serve. All of this for what? To divide people on racial lines to save $2.5 million a year.” Mr. Speaker, these comments impute false or hidden motives to Minister Lee and the government as a whole, which is a violation of Rule 23(i), and moreover, Mr. Speaker, any comment that suggests the government establishes policies based on racial considerations is abhorrent, irresponsible and should not be tolerated in this House. Thank you.
To the point of order. Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do look forward to a resolution of this at some point in time, but it wasn’t my intent to hurl insults or be abusive or insulting to my colleague, Ms. Lee. Mr. Speaker, I take my position here as a Member of the Legislative Assembly very seriously. When I use
words in this House, those are words that I get in conversations with residents, constituents, people who bring issues to me, and if I do believe that a certain Minister is acting in an arrogant fashion, an ignorant fashion, it is my duty and my obligation as a Member of this House to come here and tell them that. I do look forward to your ruling on this point of order.
To the point of order. Mr. Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We spent a fair bit of time a number of months ago at Blachford Lodge talking about how we’re going to interact with each other, the importance of being respectful, to use proper language, to avoid the hurling of insults. I would assume and I would trust that whatever a Member hears on the street doesn’t necessarily feel or she necessarily feels obligated to repeat in this House without any kind of filter or editing to make sure that it fits the decorum of this institution that we all work in. The Member made a point of reiterating the very same allegations that he’s just been called on a point of order on.
I, as well, look forward to your ruling. If we’re going to allow the tenor of the debate, the tone of the debate to deteriorate to the point where we can start hurling those type of insults and invective back and forth across the floor, then it’s going to be a very difficult process to have meaningful debate within the context of consensus government that we all agreed was important and that we wanted to make sure we could maintain.
To the point of order. Ms. Lee.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just want to add that as Members of this Legislature we do have rules of debate. Sometimes our debates get heated. We are passionate people. We are passionate about the issues that we are fighting for and the people we represent. As the Members of Cabinet, we understand that we need to be accountable and answer questions and we should have a healthy debate on the merits of the policy as they are presented.
I think name calling, I can’t imagine that I could get away with calling any Members on the other side ignorant. That’s not a very nice word. Arrogant. And to suggest that the government is doing anything on racial lines, those are serious words. I think we should be mindful of the words that we are using. I ask you to look at this order and decide on the interest and the good of the integrity of this House.
To the point of order. Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to add a little bit to this debate. I think what I heard Mr. Ramsay expressing, certainly in terms of the description of the Minister, was, it might have been a little out of line, but he was suggesting that he was describing her actions. Again, that’s up to you to determine whether or not that was correct.
As to the statement about the government being fair and equitable and the division of people along racial lines, I have to say that I don’t believe that’s impugning the motive of the government. I think that’s an interpretation of a policy which is before us at the moment and which we are debating. I have to say that I have to side with Mr. Ramsay in the belief that this policy is divisive and whether it’s racial lines or ethnic lines, but it’s certainly implied in the policy. I’d like to encourage you to consider that in your ruling.
To the point of order. If there are no other points of order, I’d just like to take this under advisement and I will review Hansard and what’s been said.
Point of order.
Excuse me, I’m making a ruling here. Again, I’ll repeat, I will take this under advisement in regard to what’s been stated here with regard to the point of order and what’s been said here in the House and, more importantly, what’s in Hansard. With that, I would like to have an opportunity to review that and I will come forward with my ruling.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have waited until today to raise this point of order because I wanted to review yesterday’s Hansard.
On Tuesday, May 11th, during the question period. Mr. Abernethy said, and I quote from page 27 of the unedited Hansard for that day: “So what she is saying, that they are not covered, it is not completely true. It is doublespeak. She is saying one thing when really she is trying to say another…”
Mr. Speaker, the Merriam Webster Dictionary defines doublespeak as, “language used to deceive, usually through concealment or misrepresentation of truth.” Mr. Speaker, the term strongly suggests a deliberate misleading of the House and as such violates Rule 23(j), which states that in debate a Member will be called to order by the Speaker if the Member charges another Member with uttering a deliberate falsehood.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I ask for your ruling.
To the point of order. Mr. Abernethy.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, too, have a definition of doublespeak taken from a dictionary, as well, that says, intentionally deceiving language, not an outright lie or a tactful euphemism, but a systematic use of ambiguous, evasive words and sentence structures to say one thing but mean something else, commonly associated with the bureaucracy, military and politics. It is often practiced in commerce, also a calculated attempt to: (1) avoid or shift responsibility; (2) distort reality by making the bad, negative or unpleasant look good, positive or pleasant and vice versa; and (3) confused by using unfamiliar or concocted jargon, an example, see collateral damage as an example. It’s also called doubletalk or doublethink. The noun: evasive, ambiguous language that is intended to confuse. It comes originally in 1957 from a book by George Orwell and it’s often referred to as doubletalk, as well, which is meaningless speech which consists of nonsense syllables mixed with intelligent words, also sometimes known as gibberish, deliberately ambiguous or evasive language also called doublespeak.
Mr. Speaker, in responding to some of the things that the Minister said yesterday, I felt that she was clearly using ambiguous language that wasn’t clear and I think doublespeak fits that term. I look forward to your ruling. Thank you.
To the point of order. Ms. Lee.
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...
Ms. Lee ...
...not lie. I’m sorry. I didn’t mean to say lie.
I would like to remind Members that we are dealing with a point of order that has been specifically stated. Could you keep your frame of discussion to the point of order? So, to the point of order. Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to speak briefly to this. The Member did indeed use the term “doublespeak” yesterday. I think it is my impression, or my reading of his use of the term was that this Minister frequently does say things that can be taken in two different ways. When we are trying to have a discussion that clarifies things, that does not do service to the issue. Whether or not the Minister does that on purpose, I am not saying, but nevertheless, she does tend to use things that can be interpreted in two different ways. That does not add clarity to the issue under discussion. My interpretation is that by using the term “doublespeak,” Member Abernethy was simply expressing his frustration in this lack of clarity being brought into discussion by the Minister. Thank you.
To the point of order. Ms. Lee.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I don’t have any more to add to the point of order. I just want to withdraw my very last word, which is that it was a lie. I didn’t mean to say that. I withdraw and apologize. I wouldn’t call any Member here to say that they are lying. I apologize. I withdraw and apologize. Thank you.
I accept your apology. To the point of order. Similar to my last ruling, I will again take this under advisement. I will review the debate in the House in regards to this point of order. I will come back with my ruling.
