I think we are getting more and more into debating the whole issue rather than sticking to the point of order.
We are in a rather ticklish situation, especially for your Speaker. I have ruled that what the hon. Minister of Finance brought up in the House is not a point of privilege and I want to put that to one side.
I have in front of me now a point of order on what is claimed to be unparliamentary language of one member to another. I have citations from both sides seemingly to support a particular argument.
I think it is regrettable, my colleagues, that in the course of the question period we deviate and we go from the administrative responsibilities of members to delving into areas which are not exclusively in that area. I have asked the House on a number of occasions, both the questioners and the people who are answering the questions, to try to contain their answers so that there is no overflow into matters which are more personal in nature.
I think, at least up to this point, if you would give your Speaker time, I will go back and review not only Hansard , but I will look at it for myself on television. If, as it is claimed but which I did not feel at the time, unparliamentary language was used, if indeed it was used, I ask the House to permit me to at least look at the evidence, to ponder it for a little while and if it is necessary I will come back to the House.
Therefore, on this particular point of order, unless there is more information that you would like to offer for me to consider, I would prefer to take the matter under advisement, reread Hansard , look at the tapes and if it is necessary I will get back to the House. Is that agreeable to the House?