I call the Legislative Assembly back to order. Before I proceed with the orders of the day, I would like to respond to a point of order raised by the Member for Thebacha, Mrs. Marie-Jewell, earlier today, and I quote: "I rise on a point of privilege today. Mr. Speaker, in reviewing the unedited Hansard, I am somewhat at a loss as to why I was cut off yesterday, and under what rule or authority this happened. I know I cannot question the authority of the Speaker, but I would ask that you review page 625 because I feel my fundamental privilege to pose questions in the House has been curtailed without clarification. Thank you."

I have reviewed the unedited Hansard for February 27, and would refer to the first question asked by Mrs. Marie-Jewell, which was to the Minister responsible for Safety and Public Services, on a third supplementary question to Question O186-12(2), and I quote: "Mr. Speaker, can the Minister tell this House as to what is the cost or the rate of the chairperson's fee per day?" The Minister responded to that question, and I quote: "The rate of remuneration for the chairperson of the mining safety bill committee will be appropriate to that person's professional qualifications. It will be the standard rate that is paid to a professional engineer -- I do not know how much it is."

On a new question by Mrs. Marie-Jewell, Question O187-12(2), and on a second supplementary question the Member asked the following: "Actually, I was happy that he answered the way he did because I did want him to allude to the fact that we were paying an independent chairperson, and I would like to know, how much is the Minister paying this independent chairperson." The Minister of Safety and Public Services had provided an answer to that same question earlier. In the strictest terms, the Minister answered the Member's question. Whether the answer was not the answer the Member wanted, according to the rules and precedents, it was an answer.

I would like to quote the sources for my decision from Beauchesne's, 6th edition. Citation 409(8) states: "A question that has previously been answered ought not to be asked again."

Also citation 410(9) states: "Questions should not repeat questions already asked although this does not mean that other questions on the same point are out of order."

As the Speaker was not asked to rule on this matter at the time the question was raised. In the strictest interpretation of the rules and precedents, the Member for Thebacha did ask the same question again, which the Minister had answered. Whether the Member for Thebacha appreciated the answer is not a point of order.

I further consider the matter on what was permissible by way of a supplementary. A supplementary question must, and I quote citation 414 of Beauchesne's: "Although there may be no debate on an answer, further questions, as may be necessary for the elucidation of the answers that have been given, within due limits, may be addressed to a Minister. The extent to which supplementary questions may be asked is in the discretion of the Speaker."

According to the rules and precedents, the Minister did answer the Member's question, therefore, the Member for Thebacha does not have a point of order. Item 19, report of committee of the whole. Mr. Chairman.