Mr. Speaker, I believe that when you render your decision on this issue there are three points to consider in the matter of the point of order.
As the hon. House leader has indicated, unparliamentary language is a point of order. I could have argued as well that in the case of the hon. member it constituted a point of privilege, but that has been ruled on. But that does not negate the fact that there is an outstanding point of order.
First, it was brought to the attention of the House by the House leader the issue of causing disorder by using unparliamentary language; second, that imputing motive is not correct in any circumstance and; third, an allegation was made whereby the hon. minister was accused of committing something which certainly could be said to have been, at its worst, a criminal act of not paying the taxes of this country.
The combination of all of these things is unacceptable for the Parliament of a modern democracy. I ask Mr. Speaker to rule that this is unparliamentary language under any definition we have and all of the instances that we have had before.
Mr. Speaker has ruled in the past that making fun of another member's use of words in the House has been a point of order and has had to be withdrawn. Alleging that another member of Parliament in the past, for instance, had made untrue statements has been
asked to be withdrawn. Inflammatory language has been asked to be withdrawn. Finally, even members who have seen fit to mimic the voice intonation of others have been asked to be withdrawn.
If all of these things are out of order, surely making that kind of an accusation against the Minister of Finance of this country should be withdrawn.