Madam Speaker: I have a ruling for the House.

On May 1, 1996, during Question Period a point of order was raised by the government House leader concerning words spoken by the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton). I took the matter under advisement to peruse Hansard. The words in question were not spoken while the honourable member for Thompson had the floor, but while speaking to the government House leader's point of order, the member for Thompson did acknowledge having made comments about an individual.

Hansard shows that what was said by “An Honourable Member” was: “This person had inside knowledge.” While speaking to the point of order, the honourable member for Thompson stated, “I suggested that someone who was the campaign manager for the Premier might have some inside knowledge about what is going on in that government.” The government House leader raising the point of order characterized the comments as allegations that were totally inappropriate.

I believe what we have is two different perspectives on the same set of circumstances; one member believes one thing and another member believes another. Beauchesne Citation 494 states that there are occasions when the House may have to accept two contradictory accounts of the same incident. I believe this is one of those times. There is no point of order.

Having ruled on the matter, I would like, however, to draw to the attention of the House, Citation 493.(4) of Beauchesne which cautions that great care should be taken by members while making statements about persons who are outside the House and unable to reply. I would encourage all honourable members to do this.