Point of Order
May 1, 2008: Inflammatory Language
Ms Blakeman: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Earlier today during question period in an exchange between the minister of health and I believe it was the Member for Edmonton Beverly Clareview, the minister contravened standing orders 23(h), (i), and (j) and also Beauchesne 409(7). He made a statement –and I’m sorry; I don’t have the benefit of the Blues for the exact word – to the effect that only the government MLAs were proud or appreciative of the new Mazankowski heart centre.
Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I don’t think this is behaviour or commentary worthy of a minister. At no point has any member of the fficial Opposition said they did not support the Mazankowski heart centre or that they weren’t equally proud and supportive of it. To infer otherwise is offensive and, I think, abusive. As a matter of fact, earlier today in an exchange in response to a ministerial statement we did say things like that we were echoing the hon. minister’s congratulations – and then a number of people were listed, including the health region, University Hospital Foundation, a number of others; the workers that helped build the particular institute were commended, as were the surrounding businesses, the health staff that worked in it – and that we wanted to see the institute up to speed and open and servicing people as soon as possible.
That kind of commentary is not helpful to the tone of this House, Mr. Speaker. We all know that the government got 72 seats – fair enough – and the opposition has nine. All right. That’s reality. But to hear a government minister get up and harangue a smaller pposition member and get pointed about that certain members from Edmonton were not equally supportive when there is nothing on the record to support that is, frankly, childish, and it is not worthy of a minister of this government.
In Beauchesne 409(7) we should “adhere to the proprieties of the House, in terms of inferences, imputing motives or casting aspersions upon persons within the House or out of it,” and 23(h), (i), and (j), as we’re all very familiar, is to discourage or prohibit imputing false or unavowed motives, to not use abusive or insulting language likely to create disorder – that certainly happened in this case – and (h) is to make allegations against other members.
There’s absolutely nothing to back that up, and frankly it’s an invention meant to be insulting. It was meant to be, and I don’t think that should be accepted in this House. We’ve managed to get through three weeks without that kind of language and tone from the government front bench, and I don’t think it should start now. I’m asking the Speaker to find that the member has contravened the citations that I’ve mentioned, and I believe that the member should withdraw his remarks and apologize to the House. Thank you.
Other Sections
Youth Voice
@ The Leg
Photo Blog