Madam Speaker: I have four rulings for the House.

On March 5, 1997, during debate of the Speech from the Throne, a point of order was raised by the honourable First Minister (Mr. Filmon) with respect to words spoken by the Leader of the official opposition (Mr. Doer) in debate. The words in question were "I think the Premier going to community meetings and saying that teachers are overpaid by 20 percent and underworked is an absolute disgrace." The Premier, in raising the point of order, denied that he had made such a remark.

The First Minister did not have a point of order. A point of order is a question raised to call attention to any departure from the rules or from the customary modes of proceeding in debate. A dispute arising between two members as to allegations of fact is not a point of order.

During Question Period on March 5, 1997, the opposition House leader (Mr. Ashton) raised a point of order about my caution on the use of the phrase "will the Premier finally tell the truth." In raising the point of order, the opposition House leader made reference to Beauchesne Citation 490 stating that the phrase "not telling the truth" had been ruled as being parliamentary. In speaking to the point of order, the government House leader (Mr. McCrae) indicated that the context of the word, rather the inclusion of a word on a list, governed the acceptability of language. This point is made in Beauchesne Citation 491.

I would draw to the attention of the House that Speaker Rocan on seven occasions ruled out of order variations of the phrase "not telling the truth." Further, I would observe that on March 5 I had not asked the phrase "will the Premier finally tell the truth" be withdrawn; I had asked that discretion in the choice of words be exercised. However, as the opposition House leader had, in his point of order, asked whether the phrase, as he used it on March 5, 1997, was parliamentary, I would have to rule that strictly speaking it was unparliamentary.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Madam Speaker, I assume from your ruling-- and I do not recall the circumstances--did occur back on March 5--that you had indicated that it was unparliamentary. Is that--

Madam Speaker: That is correct.

Mr. Ashton: That is the case; I am glad. I am receiving some advice on the rules from the Premier (Mr. Filmon), who certainly is an expert on unparliamentary phrases.

I was wondering--and it is difficult, once again, not remembering the circumstances because it was such a lengthy time ago, at the beginning of the last session, but that being the case, if it was unparliamentary, are you not requesting a withdrawal of the statement?

Madam Speaker: I am not requesting--

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. I am not requesting withdrawal at this time because I had dealt with it initially, but it was then again challenged by the opposition House leader on a point of order. I had specifically then cautioned, said that we had not accepted the use of that word on several previous occasions, but I had asked him to please use, or yourself I guess, to use discretion in the choice of your words.

Do you all have a copy of the ruling from March 7?

Order, please. I am ruling on a point of order I took under advisement on March 7 during Question Period about an answer to a question given by the First Minister. The question from the Leader of the official opposition (Mr. Doer) was about funding to the Manitoba Metis Federation. In his reply, the Premier spoke about job creation in Manitoba.

The member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) raised a point of order about the content of the reply. Having reviewed Hansard, I have concluded that there was a point of order. As Beauchesne Citation 417 states: answers to questions should deal with the matter raised. I would ask the First Minister, when replying to questions, to relate directly to the issue in the question asked of him.

I took under advisement a point of order raised by the honourable Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship (Mrs. Vodrey) on March 30 during debate of the budget motion with respect to words used by the honourable member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford). The words in question were "the big lie."

In looking at Hansard, the complete sentence read: "This argument of cutting now to protect future generations is simply at best nonsense and at worse doublespeak or, as I believe my colleague from Wolseley christened it the other night, the big lie."

Past precedents of this House were reviewed. In 1991, Speaker Rocan twice ruled in order the term "one big lie," noting that the phrase was not targeted at an individual. On October 28, 1996, I cautioned a member on the use of the words "You know what the ultimate big lie in this MTS Answers document," but did not rule the phrase as being unparliamentary. Also, as the member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford) correctly pointed out, the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) used the term more than once in her speech about the budget this session and no intervention occurred. Given the precedents and given the context in which the words were used by the member for Osborne, I am ruling that there was no point of order.

On March 24, 1997, I took under advisement a point of order raised by the Leader of the official opposition (Mr. Doer) respecting words spoken by the honourable Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik) during Question Period. In raising the point of order, the Leader of the official opposition asserted that the Minister of Health had imputed unworthy motives to the respiratory therapists of Manitoba. I have reviewed Hansard to ascertain the context in which the words were spoken. The words in question were:

"What I would suggest we have here is a lot of people with their own particular piece of interest in this area pursuing it and if that were the case we would never make any decisions in government."

* (1440)

Beauchesne Citations 481(e) and 484(3) deal with imputation of motives, but both contemplate comments made by one member about another member; these citations do not address comments made by a member about persons outside the House. Therefore, the Leader of the official opposition did not have a point of order. However, I caution the minister that care should be taken by members of this House when speaking of persons or groups outside this House.